Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

State-aided Insurance Schemes

Mr. Finlay: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement as to State-aided insurance schemes available to pilots of the Royal Air Force.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

Sennybridge Range (Use)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement upon the use which the Royal Air Force proposes to make of the Sennybridge Artillery Range; and what opposition was offered to the change of use by the local authorities.

Mr. Ward: I assume the hon. Member has in mind air support demonstrations. It is not at present proposed to carry out any of these this year. I understand that, after a meeting with representatives of the War Office, the local authorities gave their agreement to the range being used for this purpose.

Mr. Watkins: Will the hon. Gentleman convey that information to the Secretary of State for War who, I understand, has taken advantage of there being no opposition to that project and is taking compulsorily land for the Sennybridge Range?

Mr. Ward: Perhaps the h on. Gentleman will address a Question on that subject to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Clothing Allowance

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total annual amount of an airman's clothing allowance; and whether he will give a representative sample list of articles of Air Force clothing which could be bought for that sum.

Mr. Ward: As the reply consists of tables of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Stewart: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether experience shows that an airman can keep himself properly in clothing throughout the year on the total amount of the clothing allowance?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. Those figures will be included with the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


CURRENT ANNUAL RATES OF CLOTHING ALLOWANCE PAYABLE TO AIRMEN



£
s.
d


Regular Airmen—





Warrant Officers—U.K. and Germany
13
12
6


Warrant Officers—Tropical areas
11
18
0


Airmen—U.K. and Germany
12
12
6


Airmen—Tropical areas
11
8
0


National Service Airmen—





All areas
5
10
0

A REGULAR AIRMEN SERVING IN THE U.K. COULD PURCHASE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES WITH HIS ALLOWANCE OF £12 12s. 6d.


Article
Quantity
£
s.
d.


Uniform
…
…
1 suit
4
13
3


Shirt
…
…
1

18
11


Collars
…
…
2

4
4


Tie
…
…
1

1
6


Underwear
…
…
1 set
1
1
5


Pyjamas
…
…
1 suit
1
0
0


Leather shoes
…
…
1 pair
2
5
1


Canvas shoes
…
…
1 pair

8
10


Socks
…
…
2 pairs

7
10


Gloves
…
…
1 pair

6
0


Pullover
…
…
1

17
11


Towel
…
…
1

6
6


Badge
…
…
1


11






£12
12
6

Protective Clothing

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will investigate the efficacy of the protective clothing issued to airmen engaged on dirty work.

Mr. Ward: The one-piece denim overalls now in general use were introduced in 1950 after extensive trials. I have no evidence that they are not effective.

Mr. Stewart: Is this clothing effective in the opinion of the men who have to use it?

Mr. Ward: The new type of overalls was approved by the Air Ministry Working and Protective Clothing Committee, after consultation with commands and after trying them out at Air Force stations.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister give a definition of what exactly is meant by "dirty work" in the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Ward: Work that does not take place at the cross-roads.

Aviation Medicine (Textbook)

Dr. Broughton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what standard textbook on aviation medicine has been adopted for the use of medical officers of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ward: Armstrong's "Principles and Practice of Aviation Medicine."

Dr. Broughton: Is the Minister satisfied that that book is up-to-date in its contents; and, as there is a very good book written by a British author which is recommended for use in the Air Forces of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and Pakistan, why is this book not recommended for use in the Royal Air Force? It is Dr. Bergin's "Aviation Medicine."

Mr. Ward: Mr. Armstrong is an American author whose book was published in this country in 1952 by Balliere, Tindall and Cox, and it is, I think, generally accepted to be the best reference work on the subject so far produced. Of course, Dr. Bergin's book is also available in command libraries.

Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his statement that the American work is generally accepted is not within the experience of many people and that it is not generally accepted by many Dominion Air Forces and many authorities in this country? Can he therefore say why no reference has been made to the work of Dr. Bergin?

Mr. Ward: We are guided in these matters by the Institute of Aviation Medicine, and it was on their advice that we

adopted Mr. Armstrong's book as our textbook.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not correct that since then another book has been published by a British author? Has the matter been looked at again since the publication of this book?

Mr. Ward: Dr. Bergin's book was published in 1949 and Mr. Armstrong's book in 1952.

Raincoats

Mr. Driberg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that greatcoats and ground-sheets are in various respects unsatisfactory wet-weather wear; and if he will consider making raincoats a standard issue to all ranks in the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. We are looking at this matter closely to see whether any changes can be made.

Fighter and Bomber Aircraft

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he expects the Hunter aircraft in the Royal Air Force to be modified to prevent the engines stalling in certain circumstances when the guns are fired.

Mr. Ward: It is not possible to give a precise forecast. Plans must be translated into engineering details and parts produced and fitted. These processes are being pursued with all possible speed.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Under-Secretary promise us that the Air Ministry will tolerate no delay at the manufacturers or Ministry of Supply now that they know in general what is wrong and that it can be cured? Will they press on with it?

Mr. Ward: Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are just as keen to get these modifications introduced as he is.

Mr. Wigg: Does that apply to both the Avon and Sapphire jets, or only to the Avon?

Mr. Ward: It applies to a lesser extent to the Sapphire.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether arrangements have now been made so that in future the operational commands of the Royal Air Force will be in closer touch


with the designers and manufacturers of new aircraft than they were in the case of the Hunter.

Mr. Ward: There was no lack of cooperation between Fighter Command and Hawkers during the development of the Hunter. As already announced, we are now ordering larger numbers of pre-production aircraft, and this will give squadron pilots better opportunities to fly new aircraft during their development than has been possible with the few prototypes hitherto available.

Mr. de Freitas: Apart from the prototypes, is the Under-Secretary satisfied that the machinery by which the operational command is kept in touch with the manufacturers over design and development is adequate, and will be so in the future?

Mr. Ward: Yes, one of the steps we have taken recently is to appoint a liaison officer from the operational command complete with a crew in the case of multi-seater aircraft. They are appointed to the firm and they are kept closely in touch with the work at all its stages.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, in the Air Estimates debate last year, he said:
More than half our regular day fighter force will consist of British swept-wing fighters by this time next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 1365.]
He must have had full knowledge of all the programme with regard to the Hunter and Swift then, so does not that dispose completely of his rather craven charge that the defects and delays are due to the late Government and not to him, as he made that statement last year with full knowledge of the facts?

Mr. Ward: The whole of this matter will be dealt with, as the lion. Gentleman knows, in a White Paper which will be produced shortly. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until that comes out and then study it closely.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would my hon. Friend say whether, if more prototypes had been ordered when the new sweptwing fighters were ordered, these teething troubles would not have been brought to light much sooner, and therefore the aircraft would have been in operational use

much sooner, and does not the responsibility for the small number of prototypes rest with the previous Government?

Mr. Ward: There again, I ask my hon. Friend to wait for the White Paper, where he will find all these matters fully dealt with.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he now proposes to authorise the purchase of Swift aircraft for use in the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he expects the Swift fighter to be in service with the Royal Air Force and 100 per cent. operationally reliable.

Mr. Ward: I think this is a matter which could be better dealt with in the context of the White Paper on Aircraft Supply.

Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough not to deceive the House any longer?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The hon. Member should not suggest that another hon. Member of this House is deceiving anyone.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Wigg: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman was wilfully deceiving the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will withdraw nothing. The hon. Gentleman, through no fault—[Interruption.] I have no intention whatever of asserting that the hon. Gentleman is wilfully deceiving the House, but I do say that he is deceiving the House. The House is being deceived on this issue. This aircraft is completely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. That is not good enough. The hon. Member ought to know that to charge another hon. Member with deceit carries with it the implication that it has been done wilfully.

Mr. Wigg: I am very anxious, Mr. Speaker, to meet your Ruling, but unless you order me to withdraw, I will not withdraw.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member really ought to withdraw that expression. Perhaps he did not realise when he was using the word what its implication was, but I have to keep order in this House.

Mr. Wigg: I am willing, and I accept your Ruling, Sir, in so far as I cast any aspersion on the hon. Gentleman, but I assert that in fact the House and the country are being deceived on this issue, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman can settle it himself. He knows perfectly well that this aircraft is unsatisfactory and is to be withdrawn. Why does he not say so?

Mr. Ward: I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and I think the House knows me well enough by now to realise it—that I am not deceiving the House in any way. All I ask the House to accept is my statement that at this point I am not in a position to make an announcement on this subject, but that the White Paper is being produced within the next few days and there will then be ample opposition—[Laughter.]—ample opportunity to study the White Paper and discuss it fully.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Minister aware that in the Air Estimates debate in 1953, two years ago, he said:
We intend to form our first squadrons of Swifts towards the end of the year …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1515.]
Further, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence in the debate on defence last year said, "The first Swifts are in squadron service," and since neither of those statements is true, is it not the case that the Government have misled the House and the country?

Mr. Ward: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the thoroughness of his homework, but he knows perfectly well that there is a squadron of Swifts.

Mr. Wyatt: In operation?

Mr. Ward: In service with the Royal Air Force, and there was when that statement was made.

Mr. Wyatt: Yes, but in operation?

Mr. Wigg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the date on which it was decided to fit externally-hung link and cartridge baskets to Hunter Hawker

aircraft; and the percentage of these aircraft in use by the Royal Air Force which have been so modified.

Mr. Ward: The containers to which the hon. Member presumably refers are designed to collect spent links. It was decided in November, 1954, that these devices should be incorporated. They will be fitted as they become available. They eliminate any risk that the aircraft will be damaged by spent links in flight and have been so designed that they will not materially affect the performance of the aircraft.

Mr. Wigg: How many of these aircraft have so far been fitted with these baskets? Have any been fitted?

Mr. Ward: I covered that point in my original answer. I said that they would be fitted when they became available.

Mr. Wigg: I did not ask when; I asked how many?

Dr. R. Bennett: May I ask my hon. Friend if he will point out to the hon. Gentleman that the aircraft in which he is taking such a sudden interest is not the Hunter Hawker and not the headline hunter, but the Hawker Hunter?

Mr. Wigg: I am quite willing to take note of that information if the Under-Secretary will tell us how many Hunter Hawkers or Hawker Hunters are fitted with this basket.

Mr. Ward: I was trying to make it clear that none of these devices was so far available.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the date on which it was decided that the tail of the Hunter Hawker must be redesigned; and the percentage of these aircraft at present in use by the Royal Air Force which have been so modified.

Mr. Ward: There has been no decision to redesign the tail of the Hunter. We are considering whether an all-moving tail might be an advantage on the later developments of the Hunter, but this does not affect aircraft in use or at present being delivered.

Mr. Wigg: Are we now to understand that the Hunter's guns do not fire, that it is not fitted with a basket to collect the links and that the tail is not satisfactory, but that the aircraft is in operation?

Mr. Ward: No, I must correct all that. The guns are perfectly capable of firing, but under certain flight conditions and at certain heights the engine is apt to get surge when the guns are kept firing for a long time. They are perfectly able to fire now. This modification is necessary to avoid damage to the aircraft, but, at the worst, it only makes a few dents in it and it can still be flown perfectly easily. As to the point about the baskets, I think I have already dealt with that in my answer.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he expects the Victor, Valiant, and Vulcan bombers to be in service with the Royal Air Force and capable of operational flight.

Mr. Ward: The first operational squadron in the Royal Air Force is at the moment being re-equipped with Valiants. We hope that next year we shall have Victors and Vulcans in service as well.

Mr. Wyatt: Is not the Minister aware that he said in the debate on the last Air Estimates that the Valiant will be in squadron service in 1954, and it is now 1955? Is it not the case that we have as much delay and inefficiency in the production of bombers as we have in the production of fighter aircraft?

Mr. Ward: My recollection, although I am prepared to be corrected if I am wrong, is that I said "in the coming financial year." The financial year is not yet over.

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman said 1954.

Mr. Ward: The financial year is not yet over and Valiants are being delivered now. If the hon. Gentleman checks my speech, he will find that I said "in the coming financial year."

Mr. Wigg: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman had a Question down from me, which he has carefully passed on to the Ministry of Supply, in which I asked him to say what was wrong with the Valiant's wings and ailerons? Am I to take it that those are all right?

Mr. Ward: I passed the Question to the Minister of Supply because it is a Ministry of Supply matter. I am not aware of any redesign of the wings.

Mr. Wigg: Or the ailerons?

Mr. Ward: I know of some modification to the ailerons, and that is being carried out at the present time.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what types of long-range bomber, capable of operational flight, are in service with the Royal Air Force; and in what numbers.

Mr. Ward: Apart from the squadron of Valiants now forming, our bomber squadrons are at the moment equipped with Lincolns and Canberras. It would not be in the public interest for me to give numbers.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not the case that we now have no modern fighter aircraft to defend us and we have only one squadron of Valiants as medium bombers with which to launch an attack?

Mr. Ward: As I have said, the Valiants are coming in now and we hope to have Victors and Vulcans next year. Meanwhile, we have excellent aeroplanes in the Lincoln and the Canberra.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend not agree that if the party opposite had not lost their heads when the Korean war started and ordered so many Canberra bombers, half of which I believe had to be cancelled, many of these other types would now be in use?

Mr. Wigg: Whether the Opposition lost their heads or not has nothing to do with the fact that the tail dropped off a Victor last year.

Seaton Snook Station

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the rates of pay payable to civilian waiters at the Seaton Snook Radar Station; and how these rates of pay and conditions of service compare with rates paid by good employers in the district.

Mr. Ward: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a comparison between the conditions of service of a civilian waiter at Seaton Snook and the provisions for a waiter in a licensed restaurant laid down in the Order made under the Catering Wages Act. I think that, when he has studied them, the hon. Member will agree that our conditions compare very well with what is done outside.

Mr. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are civilian waiters in this R.A.F. station who, after paying their travelling expenses, have less than £5 10s. a week on which to live and maintain a family, and does he think that is reasonable in present circumstances?

Mr. Ward: I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to compare these rates with the minimum laid down for waiters in the area. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the figures first and then, if he is not satisfied, I shall be happy to go into the matter further.

Mr. Driberg: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the wages of these

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF A CIVILIAN WAITER AT R.A.F. STATION, SEATON SNOOK AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CURRENT WAGES REGULATION ORDER FOR LICENSED RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND LICENSED RESTAURANTS MADE UNDER THE CATERING WAGES ACT


—
Civilian Waiter at R.A.F. Station, Seaton Snook
Minimum laid down for Waiters in the Area in the current Wages Regulation Order


Pay
…
128s. a week.
110s. a week.


Working week
…
44 hours spread over five days.
48 hours spread over six days.


Sunday work
…
Double time whether or not within working week.
No special rate for Sunday, but double time for work done on the weekly rest day.


Overtime
…
Calculated on a daily basis, the first hour at time and a quarter, thereafter at time and a half.
Calculated on a weekly basis, the first six hours at time and a quarter, thereafter at time and a half.


Leave
…
Two weeks.
One week for first year, thereafter two weeks.

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why, after only some eight months in use, it became necessary at considerable public expense to make extensive alterations to the bar in the officers' mess at Seaton Snook Radar Station; and what was the total cost to public funds of the alterations.

Mr. Ward: The only alteration made was quite a small one; and it was not made at public expense.

Mr. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who paid for taking out the old installations, for putting in a false ceiling, for panelling the entire room, and who paid the wages of the two joiners employed by the Air Ministry who spent five weeks in doing this job?

Mr. Ward: I have been into this matter and my information is that the only work

civilian waiters were subjected to the recent cut of £1 a week imposed on waiters elsewhere?

Mr. Ward: I should like to have notice of that question; I am afraid I do not know.

Sir C. Taylor: Is not the Air Ministry bound also by the Catering Wages Act, and is there any obligation on these waiters to serve snook?

Mr. Ward: Our rates are fixed administratively, bearing in mind the wishes of the Grading Committee of the Miscellaneous Trades Joint Council.

Following is the comparison:

done was to remove a partition in the bar to make it more convenient for those who use it. The estimated cost was £60, and it was all paid for out of the mess funds.

Christmas Common, Watlington (Use)

Mr. Hay: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on the use which is proposed to be made of his Department's property at Christmas Common, near Watlington, Oxford.

Mr. Ward: The hon. and gallant Member will by now have received the letter I wrote to him on 7th February about this case.

Mr. Hay: Is my hon. Friend aware that the contents of that letter, which have not so far been made public, indicate that it


is not intended to proceed with the ambitious scheme which was first promulgated? Will he bear in mind that my constituents and many others are very grateful for this change?

Mr. Ward: I apologise to the House. I am afraid that I read the wrong reply.

Mr. Wyatt: No wonder there are no aircraft.

Mr. Ward: The correct answer is:
We have now been able to modify our requirements so that only an unattended radio station consisting of a steel mast and a small building will be needed at Christmas Common.

Personal Case

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why a corporal, of whom details were sent to him on 11th January last, continues to be detained in a mental ward at the Royal Air Force Hospital, Halton, Buckinghamshire; whether the serious charges he made against his former commanding officer while serving in the Canal Zone have yet been investigated; and when he will be released.

Mr. Ward: The hon. and gallant Member will by now have received the letter I wrote to him on 7th February about this case.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his letter of 7th February is not very satisfactory? Will he arrange either for this constituent to be released forthwith or to be examined by a specialist not connected with the Royal Air Force, because this man has had a very long and exemplary service both during the war and since? Will the hon. Gentleman try to remove the serious sense of injustice felt by this airman?

Mr. Ward: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, this airman has already been examined by the senior specialist in neuro-psychiatry at Halton, a specialist in whom I have the greatest possible confidence. I am quite sure that it is in the man's own interests that he should stay where he is for the time being.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Lost Property Regulations (Review)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement indicating what decision has been reached in the consideration given to the regulations related to property found by members of the public on public transport.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Yes, Sir. I have decided that a review is called for of this and other aspects of the regulations that have been brought to my attention. It will be necessary to consult various interested organisations, and I hope to begin these discussions shortly.

Mr. Dodds: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give some indication of how long he expects it will be before he can at least make some announcement of intention to give some sort of reward and recompense for honesty in matters of this sort?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It will take quite a time. The number of different regulations, administrative orders and statutory provisions which cover this subject is quite appalling when one goes into the matter.

Mr. K. Thompson: In view of the wide national interest in a matter of this sort, will my right hon. Friend consider letting Parliament consider any proposed changes before they are made absolute?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will consider that suggestion. It depends very much upon the form in which any necessary change has to be made.

International Driving Permits

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why applicants for foreign touring documents are asked to state their age, instead of merely that they are over 21 years of age; and why applicants for international driving permits are asked to provide a photograph and to state the exact date of their birth, although these particulars are contained in every passport.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because the International Conventions of 1926 and


1949 provide that international driving permits must contain a photograph and specify the date of birth of the holder. For other international documents I understand that the issuing associations are satisfied with a declaration that the applicant is or is not over 21 years of age.

Mr. Russell: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that all holders of international driving permits and car documents have to have a passport which also contains these particulars? Is not this a case of unnecessary duplication?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Possibly there is something to be said for that point of view, but we are bound by the Conventions to which I have referred.

Nationalised Industries (Retirement Age)

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what general directions he has given to the nationalised industries for which he is responsible instructing them to comply with the recommendations affecting the retirement age contained in the paragraphs 50–52 and 65–67 of the First Report of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir. As announced on 25th January by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the boards of the nationalised industries have said that they will give effect to the recommendations in the Report as far as is practicable.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister watching the progress in the industries for which he is responsible? Is he satisfied with it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir, and I have been in touch with all three chairmen concerned.

Road Haulage Assets (Disposal)

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the evidence of worsening working conditions of former British Road Services drivers consequent upon the sale of then-vehicles, and the unsatisfactory service to the public, if he will now repeal the transport Act, 1953.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept the accuracy of the allegations contained in the first part of the Question. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that the trade union movement can give him all the evidence he requires? Is he aware that in my constituency depots which belonged to the B.R.S. and which were a financial gain to the community have now been closed and that some drivers have found employment in private enterprise, where their wages have gone down and their conditions of service are worse? If all he requires for the repeal of this Act is evidence, I will give him miles of it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should be surprised, in a state of full employment and with strong trade unions in the industry, that such worsening of conditions as the hon. Member suggests could take place.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Minister think it time that he inquired from his own examiners and inspectors about the amount of illicit and illegal overtime which is being worked by drivers employed by private services, because evidence is coming into the trade unions on this matter? Does he not also think that he might call for a report from his examiners about the deteriorating mechanical conditions of these vehicles once they pass out of public hands?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary, if there is any suggestion of a breach of the law I shall be happy to have any particular case investigated. I do not accept the suggestion in the second part of his question.

Licensing Procedure (Enforcement Officers)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of officers employed by his Department full-time on enforcement work in connection with the licensing procedure laid down by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933; and the comparable number so employed in 1938.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Fifty-seven officers of my Department are engaged full-time on enforcement duties in connection with the licensing procedure laid


down by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. During the week ended 29th January, 1955, there were also 13 driving and traffic examiners engaged on these duties. On 30th September, 1938, the number of enforcement staff was 75.

Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that the number of full-time staff has decreased since 1938 and evasion is known to have increased in recent months since denationalisation, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient full-time officers to cope with the large amount of evasion which takes place?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Without necessarily accepting the implication in that question, I propose to arrange that as the larger number of driving examiners, whose recruitment has already been announced, comes in, some of them will be employed from time to time on these duties.

Mr. Davies: How does the Minister reconcile his earlier statement that he was not aware of an increase in evasion with the admission of the need to increase the number of enforcement officers?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am certainly not admitting that there is an increase in evasion but am paying this deference to the hon. Member's supplementary question: that the inspectorate should be maintained at an adequate level.

Mr. Lindgren: Is the Minister aware that some of us who are associated with service on petty sessional courts are alarmed at the increase in the number of cases arising from evasion which come before those courts, and that these cases arise from accidents? Is it not time that we dealt with the evasions prior to accidents, so that we can deal with the question of road safety?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have already indicated that I shall be happy to consider the details of any case that the hon. Member or anybody else cares to send me.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would the Minister, who seems to be in some doubt about the matter of evasion, be prepared to take evidence from senior officers of British Road Services, who can give him plenty of information on this question?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If a breach of the law is suggested, there are perfectly normal ways of bringing that matter to the attention of the police.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Foreign Aircraft Convention (Third Party Damage)

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface agreed at Rome in October, 1952, Command Paper No. 8886, has yet been ratified by the United Kingdom Government; by how many governments of those countries whose aircraft use British airports it has been ratified; and which of those countries who have not ratified the Agreement are still allowed to send aircraft to British airports.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Convention has not yet been ratified by Her Majesty's Government, nor by any country whose aircraft use United Kingdom airports. Rights to fly to this country are governed by bilateral agreements exchanging traffic rights and could not be made subject to adherence to this Convention.

Mr. Harris: Does this mean that the Convention will never come into operation?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think so.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the Minister feel that the delay in ratification is becoming unreasonable? I had to explain that some complicated matters were involved, but ought those not to have been cleared up by now?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a matter for a number of countries. In the meanwhile, as I know the hon. Member is aware, operators of aircraft flying over the United Kingdom are already liable in law for any damage they cause, without proof of negligence.

Fog Delays

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of days on which traffic in each airport in the United Kingdom was held up or delayed through fog during the last six months.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the answer is very detailed and contains a large number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

TABLE OF OCCURRENCE OF LOW VISIBILITY DURING THE HOURS OF OPERATION AT U.K. AIRPORTS DURING THE MONTHS OF AUGUST, 1954 TO JANUARY, 1955

The criteria selected are:—
(a) Visual range less than 440 yards (possible landing delays)
(b) Visual range less than 150 yards (possible landing and take-off delays)

Airport
Number of days and number of hours per day in the six months August, 1954 to January, 1955, when:—


(a) Visual range less than 440 yards but not less than 150
(b) Visual range less than 150 yards


Days
Hours per day
Days
Hours per day


Birmingham/Elmdon
…
4
5, 4, 2, 5.
3
4½, 4, 2.


Belfast/Nutts Corner
…
2
3, 1.
1
1.


Blackbushe
…
18
3½, 5½, 5½, 1½, 4½, 4½, 1½, 3½,8½, 11, 5, 9½, 1,6½, 2½, 1, 3½, 10.
8
4, 1, 1½, 1, 3½, 4, 1, 2½.


Bournemouth/Hurn
…
24
6, 1, 6½, 3½, 1½, 8, 1, 8¾, 3, 2, 5¼, 10½, 3½, 10, 2½, 2, 1½, 3, 6¾, 2, 5, 1½, 1½, 5.
6
1, 1¾, 7½, 1, 1½, 1.


Bovingdon
…
14
1, 3½, 5½, 5, 4, 4, 2, 16½, 1½, 1, 23, 13, 10, 3.
13
1, 1, 2½, 2½, 1, 3, 1, 10, 8½, 7, 22, 2, 1.


Bristol/Whitchurch
…
5
1, 1, 3, 6, 8.
2
1,3.


Cardiff/Rhoose
…
3
2, 3, 2.
2
3, 1.


* Croydon
…
14
3½, 2¼, 2, 9½, 5, 12, 4, 3, 1½, 2½, 2, 1, 6, 14½.
5
2½, 4, 2½, 11½, 6½.


Glasgow/Renfrew
…
11
1, 4½, 5¾, 5½, 16½, 3, 1, 4, 10½, 3, 4.
3
1, 2, 2.


*Gatwick
…
7
1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 7.
2
1, 6.


Liverpool/Speke
…
9
1, 12, 1½, 1½, 3, 2¼, 5¼, 1½, 1½.
3
7, 1½, 1½.


London Airport
…
9
1½, 3½, 1½, 1½, 1½, 2½, 6, 3½, 1½.
15
5½, 6½, 3, 1½, 2, 2, 10, 3, 8, 4, 5, 2, 1½, 5, 9.


Manchester/Ringway
…
4
14, 3, 1, 2.
2
14, 2.


Prestwick
…
Nil

Nil



Southampton/Eastleigh
…
7
3, 2, 2, 2, 3½, 1½, 2½.
7
2½, 1½, 2, 1½, 3, 1, 2½.


Stansted
…
15
3½, 3½, 7½, 8, 1, 3, 4½, 4½, 1½, 1, 11½, 8, 2, 3½, 1.
10
1½, 6½, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 6, 1½, 1½.

NOTES:
(1) The measurements used in compiling this table were taken along the runway in use, except where starred, in which case meteorological visibilities were used.
(2) Whether and to what extent traffic was actually delayed on any of these occasions is not known.

Aircraft Accident, Prestwick (Inquiry)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to the fatal accident which occurred to a Stratocruiser aircraft at Prestwick Airport on Christmas morning, which resulted in the loss of 28 lives.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. A B.O.A.C. Stratocruiser, on a flight from London to New York, crashed on landing at Prestwick on the morning of 25th December, 1954. Of the 25 passengers and crew of 11, 24 passengers and four crew members were killed and one passenger and seven crew injured. I have decided that a public inquiry should be held in Scotland into the accident and the Lord President of the Court of Session has appointed Mr. C. W. Guest, Q.C. as Commissioner. I am sure the House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives and with those injured in this tragic accident.

Sir T. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for the welcome action which he has taken and for his offer of sympathy. He will appreciate, I hope, that that sympathy is deeply shared in Ayrshire, especially among the workers and management at the airport itself.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that that is so.

International Convention (Rights in Aircraft)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the United Kingdom will ratify the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A Committee appointed by my predecessor, with the Hon. Mr. Justice McNair as chairman, is looking into the problems involved. Until I have its report, I cannot say anything about ratification.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the Minister give an idea when he expects the Report and, as legislation will have to be introduced, what hope there is of having the legislation this Session?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid I do not know when I shall receive this Report. I am bound to say, in defence of the Committee, that extremely difficult problems of law appear to arise. Until I have the Report, I am afraid I cannot answer the latter part of my noble Friend's Question.

Helicopter Stations

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many local authorities have sought his advice and asked for information on the establishment of inter-city air travel stations in view of the rapid development of the helicopter; and what advice and information he has given them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Sixty-seven local authorities have sought advice or information about the establishment of helicopter stations. They have been given such general guidance as the present state of knowledge of the performance and other characteristics of this type of machine permits.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now half a century since buses started carrying passengers and that only today are many of our large cities establishing bus stations? Is the right hon. Gentleman to take 50 years before he establishes a station for helicopters?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I sincerely hope not, but it is necessary for both local authorities and my Department, in deciding what they want to do in this direction, to be quite clear what will be the weight of the aircraft using the stations, what clearance will be required and many other technical problems.

Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister encourage the establishment of stations for helicopters?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am all for the enterprise of local authorities to assist in the provision of stations of this kind.

Comet I (Future)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if a decision has yet been made with regard to the future use of the Comet I aircraft now owned by the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A decision, which is of course primarily for B.O.A.C., will be taken in the light of the findings of the Court of Inquiry into the Comet accidents.

Mr. Beswick: If we have to wait for the findings of the Inquiry into the Comet accidents, why has the decision been taken that eight or nine Comet IIs should be taken over by the Royal Air Force? In view of the fact that large sums from public funds are involved, can the Minister give an assurance that there will be a full statement about the settlement in this matter after the Inquiry's Report has been published?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Question, as the hon. Member will appreciate, refers to the Comet I aircraft in the possession of B.O.A.C.; but I have little doubt that if, after publication of the Report, a Question is put down to the appropriate Minister, we will probably be able to clear up any points that are bothering the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANALS

Rusholme Committee's Report

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in possession of a copy of the Report of the Rusholme Committee on Canals; and whether he will state the policy of the Government on this matter.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has now considered the Rusholme Report on inland waterways; and if he is now able to state the policy of the Government in relation to the future of inland waterways in this country.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have received a copy of the Report of the Rusholme Committee on Canals and am considering it. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman procure further copies of the Report and make them available to hon. Members in the Library so that we can all have an opportunity of considering the potentialities of the canals alongside

the plans for the modernisation of other forms of transport?

Mr. Boyd - Carpenter: This is a Report to the British Transport Commission. I understand from the Commission that it contemplates publishing it when it can be printed, and I think there will be no difficulty in hon. Members obtaining copies. Whether strictly I can place it in the Library, as it is not an official document, I am not sure.

Kennet and Avon Canal

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has now received the proposals of the British Transport Commission for abandoning the Kennet and Avon Canal.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend not find it a little odd that notice of abandonment was at least given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) as long ago as 14th December? When this information finally reaches my right hon. Friend and he considers it, will he bear in mind two factors: first, that large sums of money have already been spent in rehabilitating this canal in the last year or two and, secondly, that at a recent meeting between hon. Members of all parties and senior officers of the Transport Commission exactly contrary assurances to abandonment were given to us?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the matter comes before me, I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. There are only two ways in which it would be open to the Commission to abandon its statutory obligations in respect of this waterway. One is by a warrant and order of abandonment under the Railway and Canal Water Act, 1888, as amended, and the other by Private Bill proceeding.

Mr. Ede: Does any reference to this Bill occur in the Rusholme Report?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is some reference to it. The right hon. Member will forgive me for not being too precise without notice, but my recollection is that it refers to parts of it in different ways.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

A40 Road, Brecon (Gunsite Firing Practice)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the approximate length of the A40 road, Brecon to Llandovery, over which he has given clearance for the firing by heavy artillery from the proposed Trecastle gunsite to the Sennybridge Range; how many vehicles used this road at the last traffic census; and to what extent it was then used by children either walking or conveyed to school.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About 2,600 yards and, according to the census taken in August, 1954, about 1,500 vehicles a day. Ten children usually walk along the road to school and eight are conveyed.

Mr. Watkins: What precautions will the right hon. Gentleman take through his agents, the Breconshire County Council, to safeguard children going along this road and visitors going from London to West Wales from the effect of this firing over the trunk road?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The safety precautions to be taken are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, to whom I think that question should be put.

Kingsley Way, London

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many accidents have been reported at points within 400 yards of the site of the proposed traffic signals at the junction of A1 with Kingsley Way, N.W.11, since November, 1953.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Sixty-six accidents were reported to the police between November, 1953, and December, 1954, and in these, two people were killed and 27 injured.

Mr. Wilson: As the Parliamentary Secretary promised in November, 1953, that these lights would be erected very quickly, is it not an extraordinary case of delay, particularly as 66 accidents have been reported since then?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the right hon. Gentleman's next Question relates specifically to the lights.

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects that the traffic signals on the A1 highway at Kingsley Way, N.W.11, promised by him in November, 1953, will be erected.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope the signals will be erected before the end of March.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his lion. Friend wrote to me on 18th June saying that he then hoped that they would be erected and working by the end of 1954? In view of the high rate of accidents, will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that they are erected by the end of March?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have every reason to hope that they will be erected by then, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, what governs these matters is the date of delivery by the manufacturers, and, owing to the demand for this equipment, at the moment there is generally a six-month delay.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only excuse not made by the Parliamentary Secretary in his letter of 18th June was delay in delivery by the manufacturers?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That only shows the versatility of my Department.

Improvements, Leicestershire

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent increased grants for road improvement and development in Leicestershire will be available under the expanded road programme.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have recently asked all highway authorities for their proposals in respect of classified roads. I can make no statement on the allocation of grants until I have received and studied such proposals as they may wish to let me have.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman say within what period he expects to be able to deal with a question of this nature?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "a question of this nature." I have asked for applications from highway authorities, and I shall deal with them when I have them in.

Halt Sign, Radlett

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will authorise the erection of "Major Road Ahead" signs in Aldenham Road, Radlett, at its junction with Station Road.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have received no request from the highway authority to authorise a sign at this junction, but I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend.

Land (Development Schemes)

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that land earmarked for major road development schemes is not purchased from private owners for other uses.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Land earmarked for trunk road schemes is safeguarded from development inconsistent with such schemes by laying down the line in a development plan, or in an order or scheme made under the Trunk or Special Roads Acts, and by directions given as necessary on my behalf under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947.

Mr. Lee: If it is found, for instance, that the North-West Coal Board has acquired private land in Newton-le-Willows in Lancashire which we were given to understand was earmarked for the North-South road, what action could the right hon. Gentleman take to ensure that a coal mine is not dug on the site of the road?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member will appreciate, it is difficult to deal with a particular case without notice, but if he will study the answer he will see that control operates not over the purchase of the land but over its use.

Hyde Park Boulevard Scheme

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give an assurance that the reconsideration of the Hyde Park Boulevard Scheme will not prejudice the inclusion of an alternative scheme for this area in the expanded roads programme at an early date.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am anxious to proceed with improvements in this area as soon as is possible.

Mr. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it took his Department two or three years to discover, or at least to admit, serious defects in the original scheme? Can he give an assurance that an amended scheme will be given every priority?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will do my best to bring it forward, but my hon. Friend is sufficiently familiar with the problem to know that other bodies, such as the London County Council, are also concerned and we have to bring the matter forward together.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If the right hon. Gentleman is ever to do anything in or around Hyde Park in the not-too-distant future, will he give absolute priority to improving the dangerous conditions of Hyde Park Corner, the most dangerous crossroads in the country?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was relieved by the latter part of the supplementary question. I agree that Hyde Park Corner has the highest density of traffic in the United Kingdom. For that reason, I am as anxious as anyone to get on with it.

Clyde Tunnel

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement explaining in greater detail his proposals for the second tunnel at Linthouse.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I indicated in my statement last week, the new programme makes provision for authorising the second tunnel under the Clyde during the period 1956 to 1959 when the first one is completed, or nearing completion.

Mr. Rankin: Whilst thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask if he accepts the estimates—already in his possession—for the twin-tunnel project, which were furnished by Glasgow Corporation?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have the highest regard for Glasgow Corporation, but I doubt whether I should be really wise to accept estimates in this way across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman make available to the House the estimate of the cost of making this tunnel in two bites and of making it in one, also combining with it the water and


other services which have to be taken under the Clyde? It would seem to be more economical to do the whole job at one go.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the surface, there is a great deal to be said for the point of view of the right hon. Member. If he cares to put down a Question on that point, I will do my best to give him the information.

Severn Bridge and Tyne Tunnel

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why he has omitted the Severn Bridge and Tyne Tunnel from the list of road schemes to be started at an early date.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because these are very expensive schemes which I cannot fit into the earlier years of the programme.

Mr. Jay: Is not the Minister aware that first priority was given to both the Severn Bridge and the Tyne Tunnel schemes as early as 1944 and 1945 by the Coalition Government as well as the Labour Government and that a great deal of preparatory work was done? It was always contemplated that those schemes would go ahead at an early date as soon as resources were available.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the right hon. Member ought to quarrel with us for not providing everything that could desirably be done in four years when his Government did precious little in six years.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that private firms were induced to set up new factories in South Wales in the immediate post-war years by an undertaking—which had the authority of the Coalition Government—that this scheme would go ahead at an early date? Does not this almost amount to a breach of public faith?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If any undertaking were given, there were many years in which such an undertaking could be carried out by our predecessors. The right hon. Member must appreciate that one is dealing with a great many years of arrears of work of this kind. It is necessary to sort out the priorities on the sort of considerations, which are too long to explain now, but which I explained in my statement on 2nd February.

Mr. P. Williams: Does the answer of my right hon. Friend mean that the Tyne Tunnel project cannot be launched until the whole scheme can be authorised? Could he not authorise construction of some of the lead-in roads for the Tyne Tunnel?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am prepared to consider suggestions of that kind. All my answer means at the moment is that it is not possible to forecast authorisation during the earlier years of the programme of which I gave details.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless the Tyne Tunnel project, which is the essential part of a much wider scheme of road development, can go forward much more quickly, a whole series of other projects is held up?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, of course, part of the problem one has to face in adjusting the order of projects is that one has to fit them in with other projects in the districts.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, in adjusting the programme, the Tyne Tunnel and the Severn Bridge slipped from the position of top priority? What is the reason for this almost studied neglect of South Wales in transport matters? Is it due to political prejudice—because the Government cannot win any seats in South Wales?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member has that idea seriously in mind, I think he would be rapidly disabused by a study of the large amount of work it is proposed to carry out in the early years in South Wales.

Roundabout, Elephant and Castle

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is satisfied that the plan for relieving traffic congestion at the Elephant and Castle, involving the construction of a large roundabout, is the most suitable scheme, in view of the lessons learned about roundabouts since the plan was approved and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

Pedestrian Crossings

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many zebra crossings were in operation at the beginning and end of 1953 and at the end of 1954.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Information for the dates mentioned is not available, but there were 10,008 zebra crossings at the end of March, 1953, and 10,151 at the end of March, 1954.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Do not those figures confirm the dismal and deplorable fact that both relatively and absolutely, pro rata and otherwise, the number of persons killed and seriously injured on zebra crossings is steadily rising?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures, of course, relate to the number of crossings and not to the number of people hurt.

Mr. Keenan: Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that the alteration of the zebra crossings and the reduction or stabilisation of their numbers has caused at the same time the disappearance of thousands of other crossings, in Liverpool and elsewhere? Now pedestrians do not know where they can cross the road. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have already, more than once, explained to the hon. Member that my predecessor the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) decided to make a large reduction in the number of striped zebra crossings. I am bound to say that the effect of that decision has been greatly to increase the respect for these crossings and, therefore, the safety given on them by both motorists and pedestrians.

Expanded Programme (Map)

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will arrange to display in the Library maps and diagrams showing, in detail, the places at which road development and improvement will take place under the roads development programme recently announced.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. The map can, however, only include the large schemes mentioned in my statement on 2nd February and will therefore give only

a very incomplete picture of what will be done under the programme.

Mr. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange for such a map to be kept up to date as the more detailed proposals are agreed and accepted by the Minister?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will consider that.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the Minister at the same time give an indication when the map is published of the dates when it is proposed to start the respective schemes?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like notice of that.

Mr. M. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is somewhat unimaginative? Can we not have several maps going into the fullest possible detail, instead of one map which cannot possibly show everything.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am anxious to give my hon. Friend as many maps as I can. The point is that it would not be possible for me at this stage to identify any more schemes than I identified on 2nd February.

Improvements, Rochester

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he is going to give permission to the Rochester City Council to carry out road improvements at the junction of the trunk road A2 with North Street A2017 at Angel Corner.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am about to authorise the acquisition of the property required for the improvement of this junction. The improvement will be put in hand as soon as possible after the property has been acquired.

Mr. Bottomley: Why does the Minister not come clean on this? He sent a letter to the Mayor of Rochester after I had put down my Question. Is he aware that the divisional road engineer recommended at the beginning of December that something should be done? What has the Minister been doing in the meantime?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have had to consider this scheme as compared with a great many others. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased that it has


now become possible to proceed with it. So far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, the right hon. Member is aware that I sent him a copy of the letter which I sent to the mayor.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that the Rochester City Council agreed a price with the owner and the district valuer provided that agreement was reached by a certain date, and that his Department was so told? That date has now been passed and the property might cost more. Is that the way to secure economy?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no reason to believe that the property is likely to cost more. The right hon. Member must appreciate that I am dealing at the moment with a very large number of schemes.

Queensferry (Temporary Bridge)

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now announce his decision on the temporary road bridge at Queensferry, Flintshire.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the high cost involved, I regret that I am unable to approve the construction of a temporary bridge which will cease to be necessary when the by-pass is constructed.

Mrs. White: If the Minister cannot approve this scheme, can he not put forward an alternative proposal for what is a serious traffic bottleneck, as his predecessor undoubtedly recognised?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am perfectly prepared to consider any suggestion that the local highway authority makes. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Lady, but the sum of £100,000 which would be involved for a temporary bridge, which would become unnecessary in a few years' time, would not be a reasonable proposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

South Wales Ports

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what part the South Wales ports are to play in the major redevelopment of British Railways.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The modernisation plans of the British Transport Com-

mission are primarily concerned with British Railways and not with other parts of the Commission's undertakings. But the Commission believe that the plan will result in more speedy and reliable rail services which will benefit the docks and industry generally.

Mr. Thomas: As there is no reference at all to Welsh interests in the Report on the modernisation of the railways, will the Minister give us an assurance that the modernisation of our railway services from the Midlands to South Wales will not lag behind that in other parts of the country?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly. The modernisation plan covers the whole of the railway system.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will not the right hon. Gentleman remember, in connection with the railways, the roads and the Severn Bridge, that both he and his predecessor have made statements about the necessity for creating new communications between South Wales and the Midlands, bearing particularly in mind the plight of some South Wales ports, for which he is industrially responsible?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am fully aware of the importance to the economic development and prosperity of South Wales of good communications, and I will certainly bear those factors in mind in connection with both road and rail.

Modernisation and Equipment, Scotland

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on the modernisation and equipment of British Railways in Scotland.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add at present to what I said on this subject in the course of the debates on 3rd February and yesterday.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the Minister be in a position shortly to announce the modernisation and equipment for Scotland separately, and also the proportion to be spent in relation to that in England and Wales?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir; the scheme is best taken as a whole, but the noble Lady will appreciate that I referred


at some length yesterday to the discussions taking place in connection with the proposed electrification of the Glasgow suburban service, which is a very large scheme.

Fenchurch Street—Shoeburyness (Electrification)

Mr. McAdden: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he now expects the electrification of the Fenchurch Street—Shoeburyness railway to be completed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I indicated during yesterday's debate, planning and survey work is going ahead, and one major engineering work has already been authorised. Date of completion depends, among other things, on availability of the necessary equipment.

Mr. McAdden: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask if his attention has been drawn to the speed with which the Dutch carried out electrification of their railways—at the rate of 1 km. a day? Will he urge the British Transport Commission to get a similar move on?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The task in this country is naturally very much greater than that in Holland, although I agree with my hon. Friend that it is always wise to learn from the example of other countries where authorities carry out a job efficiently.

Development Programme (Maps)

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will arrange to make available to hon. Members maps and diagrams, showing in detail the places at which railway development will take place under the railways reconstruction programme recently announced.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will see what further information can be given to hon. Members in addition to that already provided, but I am doubtful whether the method proposed by my hon. Friend would be very convenient.

Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is often difficult for people who do not know a locality by name or hieroglyphic designation to tell precisely what is happening? Many

northern provincial areas feel that they may not be getting a fair share of the resources which are being made available, and a map or diagram would be by far the best way of satisfying their curiosity.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Transport Commission has already said that it will issue annual forecasts. I will discuss with the Commission whether those forecasts could conveniently incorporate a map.

Sir C. Taylor: Would it not be possible to have a public exhibition of models of both the road and rail schemes to show how imaginative my right hon. Friend has been?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Without prejudice to the agreeable object of that question, there might be difficulties in finding space for the very large number of models.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Defence how far agreement was reached at the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers regarding the stationing of Australian and New Zealand Forces in Malaya.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am unable at present to add anything to the communiqué on regional defence discussions which was issued yesterday at the end of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

Mr. Thomson: Can the Minister give an assurance that in any arrangements reached, the full consent of the people of Malaya themselves will be obtained?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will instruct the British delegate to the United Nations to declare, during the discussions of the Formosa problem, that, if the Chinese People's Government accept the invitation to be present, Great Britain will only support such discussions on condition that the Chinese People's Government are admitted as full members of the United Nations with a seat on the Security Council;
(2) what recent action he has taken, either by discussions with the United States Government or through the United Nations, to secure the admission of the People's Government of China to the United Nations Organisation and a seat on the Security Council, in accordance with the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) on 7th February.

Mr. Lewis: There have been quite a lot of changes since that date. Is the Minister aware that in all probability one of the reasons the Chinese Government have not been too helpful and hopeful recently is that they resent the fact that they do not yet have their proper place on the Security Council? Will the hon. Gentleman not now at least say that it is still the Government's policy, and that the Government will do everything possible, to get the Peking Government properly represented on the Security Council?

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that our object in this dispute is to get the fighting stopped.

HOSPITAL BUILDING PROGRAMME, ENGLAND AND WALES

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Government's plan for increasing the rate of hospital building in England and Wales.
It is proposed, subject to the voting by Parliament of the necessary funds, that the building programme shall be expanded in two ways, first by the starting of a number of new major building projects, including new hospitals, and, secondly, by a special allocation of money for a plant replacement and redeployment programme; and I intend to inform hospital boards now of the amount of work it will be feasible to undertake under both heads in 1956–57 and 1957–58. It is not thought that any significant increase in capital expenditure on major schemes can be achieved in the

1955–56 programme which remains unaltered.
It is proposed in 1956–57 and 1957–58 to start major new building projects to a total value of £7½ million and £10 million respectively. For the plant replacement and redeployment programme £2 million will be available in the first of these years and £4 million in the second. Quite apart from these amounts, there will be £9 million available in 1956–57 and £10 million in 1957–58 for capital expenditure on other works. It is difficult to be precise about the total annual expenditure involved in these two years, but it is expected to be about £13 million and £18 million respectively. I should add that these figures cover only work financed from Exchequer funds. I hope that a fair amount of hospital building work will be financed from other sources during this period, but, of course, I cannot give an estimate of what this figure may be.
I am communicating these proposals at once to hospital boards and full discussion with them will be necessary before all the projects to be undertaken can be settled. I cannot, therefore, give final details today, but the boards concerned have already been asked to bring to completion the planning of a first batch of major projects, to a total value of about £7 million and these will almost certainly be among those started.
They include new general hospitals, or the first stages thereof, for Welwyn, West Cumberland, West Cornwall, Harlow and Swindon, the development of the Glangwili Hospital, Carmarthen, a new mental hospital near Wolverhampton, major extensions at mental deficiency hospitals in the Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool Regions and in Wales, new outpatient departments at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle, the Leeds General Infirmary and the Lewisham and North Middlesex Hospitals, a new block at St. James's Hospital, Balham, and major extensions to the Peterborough Memorial Hospital. Considerable expenditure is also likely to be needed during the period for making good structural defects at the Manchester Royal Infirmary.
There will also be many other projects which will need to be considered for inclusion, in the light of the further discussions to be held with hospital boards and the progress made with their preparation,


and obviously, I cannot give any firm list of these at this stage. Examples of the type of project I have in mind to start within the next few years are the new Cardiff teaching hospital, the rebuilding of Charing Cross Hospital at Harrow, a new ward block at Guy's Hospital, new general hospitals at Slough, Boston in Lincolnshire, Coventry and Sheffield and new mental hospitals in Lancashire and Yorkshire, but I cannot at present say which of these will be started in 1956–57 and 1957–58.
There is, of course, much to be done and much will remain to be done. Nevertheless, the Government believe that these outline proposals represent what can reasonably be achieved over this period and they represent also the first programme of new hospital building in this country since before the war.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marquand: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware from the applause which has greeted his statement from both sides of the House that this long overdue announcement is very much welcomed. He will be particularly aware from the representations which have been made from this side, both by deputations and in Questions on many occasions, that we are glad to see this advance now being made. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can elucidate a little more that section of his statement which says that forms of hospital building work will be financed from other sources during this period? May I also ask him whether the various projects which he has mentioned in detail and the priorities apparently assigned to them have been worked out in consultation with the Central Health Services Council?

Mr. Macleod: The sentence that refers to work financed by other sources than from Exchequer funds refers to the possibility that in certain circumstances it may be that a wealthy hospital with endowments of its own would be able to contribute towards the expenses of a scheme which I could not meet within this amount from Exchequer finances. I thought it right to inform the House first on these matters, and my circular to the regional boards concerned and to hospital boards of governors is going out this afternoon.

There will be no delay there. I have had no specific consultation with the Central Health Services Council.

Mr. Elliot: I am sure my right hon. Friend will recognise the lively pleasure with which his statement was greeted. Can he tell us approximately the number of beds he expects will be produced by this programme when it is completed, and, furthermore, may we expect a statement from the representatives of the Scottish Health Department?

Mr. Macleod: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland hopes to make a statement immediately after I have sat down, Mr. Speaker, if he catches your eye. On my right hon. Friend's first point, at the moment there are too many uncertainties for me to be able to give a firm figure of the number of beds until my consultations with the hospital boards are completed. I will let the House know as soon as I can make a reasonable estimate.

Sir F. Messer: Can the Minister say whether this special allocation from the Treasury will affect at all the normal capital allocations made to the regional boards?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman studies my answer carefully, he will see that not only are the original amounts available to the regional hospital boards fully maintained in the first of the two years to which I have referred, but they are increased by £1 million in the second, quite apart from both these programmes I have announced.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Can my right hon. Friend add something to what he said about the extra money for the plant replacement programme, and also say what economies will flow from that and what the results will be?

Mr. Macleod: This is an agreement between myself and the Chancellor for a special allocation of funds for the replacement of inefficient plant. In general, I take that to cover engineering services like boiler services and such other things as laundries, kitchens, and so on. There can be no doubt at all that the replacement of old and inefficient plant by up-to-date and modern plant will bring economies in maintenance costs in many hospitals in this country. Of course, it is not possible at this stage to say what the figures will be.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why plant replacement and redevelopment schemes should not go ahead in this coming financial year as many schemes are, in fact, ready now in the Newcastle region and in other regions which could very well be put into force? Do we need to wait for the year that he is proposing?

Mr. Macleod: I think so. As a matter of fact, the two biggest new schemes to be started under the 1955–56 programme are both schemes of boiler replacement or redeployment along those lines, and I think we need the full year indicated here for the bringing of many of these schemes up to the point when they are ready to go into operation.

Mr. Gough: Will my right hon. Friend say how this plan will affect the present needs of Crawley, of which he is well aware? Also, why should Crawley appear to be an "also ran" compared with one or two other new towns which he has specifically mentioned?

Mr. Macleod: My hon. Friend must realise that the list I gave is not exclusive. I said that many other projects would qualify, and as far as Crawley is concerned there is an £80,000 scheme which would not come into the category of a large scheme. This proposed smaller scheme is for a maternity and out-patients' department; and I understand that there is a very good hope—I do not want to put it any higher than—that it will be included in the regional board's programme for one of the years under review.

Mr. G. Thomas: As the Cardiff proposal has to satisfy the teaching needs for the whole of Wales, can the Minister say when we shall be able to go ahead with the enterprise?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I cannot. The Cardiff teaching hospital retains the first priority in both England and Wales for a completely new teaching hospital. On the other hand, it is an enormous project and it is nowhere near ready yet. In fact, the architectural competition has not yet taken place. It would therefore, be the wildest guess to say when it will be started.

Miss Ward: Am I right in assuming that under my right hon. Friend's new proposals the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board is improving its position in

regard to capital allocation? Is my right hon. Friend aware how much generally it will be appreciated that we now appear to be entering into an era of three-year planning which a great many people think of great importance for efficient and stable hospital administration?

Mr. Macleod: I think it is true—as one would expect—that those areas which were less well served before will benefit most from this statement. I think that Newcastle has more projects particularly mentioned today than any other region. In reply to the hon. Lady's second question, it is true that if it is intended to build new hospitals—which is a very big step and one which is very welcome to us all—it cannot be done wholly on a one-year basis. Regions must be given some assurance of what is to come to them for at least three years ahead.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that his statement is a complete vindication of the policy adopted by the party on this side in making hospitals a national responsibility, and that it would have been completely impossible to put any scheme of this sort into operation under the control of local authority finances? As these projects are rather for the future will the Minister also look at the staffing side, as many hospitals, even at present, have difficulty in getting adequate staffs for the services which they run?

Mr. Macleod: The staffing problem does not unduly worry me. With all the difficulties, there has been a steady increase since 1948—and it is continuing—in the numbers of staff. It will be easier to attract staff to good new hospitals than to old ones. On the more political issue which the hon. Lady raised, I find it difficult to reconcile her remarks with the fact that, even at the end of the programme, we shall not be spending as much in real terms on the completing of new hospitals as we did in the 'thirties, when most of them were voluntary.

Mrs. Braddock: That is a silly answer.

Mr. Alport: Does my right hon. Friend's statement about the new Charing Cross Hospital at Wembley mean that the new hospital will be begun before the end of 1958? Further, does his programme include any additional accommodation for mental deficiency cases in hospitals in East Anglia and, particularly, the Royal Eastern Counties Hospital?

Mr. Macleod: It is proposed to build the new Charing Cross Hospital at the site already obtained at Northwick Park, Harrow. Whether or not it will get into the 1957–58 programme depends on many things, but, as I have indicated, it stands a very good chance. In reply to the point about mental deficiency hospitals, particularly in the East Anglian Region, a major scheme is not indicated today but, as I have said, the list is not exclusive and many proposals will come forward. In addition, we shall have the normal capital programme coming from the regional boards.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of hospital facilities for East Shropshire—covered by the West Midland Regional Board—was raised with his Department some time ago and that I was advised to refer my inquiries direct to the regional hospital board? Can he now say whether any developments in East Shropshire will be included in his provisional list?

Mr. Macleod: There is not one in the provisional list, but—I am sorry, but I must repeat—that list is not exclusive. That means that projects will have a chance both of coming into the list when it is finally drawn up and also of obtaining their due priority when the regional boards' proposals are put to us.

HOSPITAL BUILDING PROGRAMME, SCOTLAND

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): With your permission, Sir, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about hospital building in Scotland.
The Government propose an increase in the rate of hospital building in Scotland corresponding to that which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has just announced for England and Wales.
The total provision for hospital building in Scotland will be increased from its present level of £1,900,000 this year and next, to £2,200,000 in 1956–57 and to £2½ million in 1957–58. Of the additional funds thus made available, £50,000 in 1956–57 and £150,000 in 1957–58 will be used to supplement the present special programme of plant renewal, on which £800,000 altogether will be spent in the three years from 1955–56 to 1957–58. The

balance will be used to increase the number of major building schemes undertaken, and I expect that it will be possible to put in hand schemes to a total value of £3 million during these three years.
In 1955–56, a start will be made on a new maternity hospital at Bellshill, Lanarkshire, a new surgical block at Kirkcaldy, and the reconstruction of a mental hospital in Dundee. Details of the subsequent programme have still to be settled in consultation with regional hospital boards, but among the projects to be considered are extensions to mental deficiency institutions in Banff and in the Glasgow area, a new treatment unit at Glasgow Western Infirmary, reconstruction of the Edinburgh Royal Mental Hospital, and improvement of hospital facilities in Shetland.
Detailed planning work will also be put in hand for other schemes to start in 1958–59 and succeeding years, including the provision of a completely new teaching hospital in Dundee.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Many of us on this side were completely unable to hear what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said at the beginning of his statement because of the noise in the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: I heard him clearly enough.

Mr. Woodburn: The House will recognise the step forward we are making in being released from many of the restrictions imposed by building shortages, but could I ask the Under-Secretary whether this programme is to be carried out without any undue curtailment of the building of houses, schools, and other important building programmes? May I also ask whether the surgical unit at Kirkcaldy means any special delay in the establishment of the new general hospital which is required for Fife to relieve the pressure on Edinburgh Royal Infirmary? Further, is there to be any provision for adjusting the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary so that it may cope with the tremendous overpressure there is on its present accommodation?

Commander Galbraith: It is not anticipated that the building programme which I have just submitted to the House will interfere in any way with other building


projects which are going ahead at the present time. The new general hospital in Fife is not in the programme but, in the meantime the new provision being made at the Victoria Hospital, in Kirkcaldy, will provide 150 beds in addition to what is there now, and we think that that should go a considerable way to relieving any pressure there is. The Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, is not in the programme at the moment.

Mr. Woodburn: May I take it that the Minister will be endorsing what has been said by the Minister of Health, and that hospitals in Scotland will also be free to use their funds for doing building work in addition to the programme enunciated today?

Commander Galbraith: That has been the case and will continue to be the case.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the statement he has just made will be warmly welcomed in Scotland? May I put him right on one point, however? The mental hospital which he said is in Dundee is in my constituency. May I also ask whether this programme contemplates the replacement of temporary war hospital accommodation which now exists?

Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. There is nothing in addition to what I have already told the House. As to the mental hospital, I was referring to the one at Westgreen.

Mrs. Mann: May I express great satisfaction at the proposal for the new maternity hospital at Bellshill? Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman doing anything about the ear, nose and throat unit? Will he tell us something about the unit which it is proposed to provide in the Western Infirmary, Glasgow?

Commander Galbraith: I can say nothing more about the ear, nose and throat unit than I said in answer to the hon. Lady and others recently. The Western Infirmary unit is to deal principally with malignant diseases and is for research as well as treatment.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend approved any schemes for the North-Eastern Region, particularly Aberdeen?

Commander Galbraith: That problem will come up for consideration in the further programme.

Mr. Rankin: Do I understand from the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the only proposal for Glasgow is the unit at the Western Infirmary? Is he aware that there is not a single hospital in Glasgow which has not a long waiting list for admission? If this is all that he can do to ease that situation then, so far as Glasgow is concerned, his proposals are totally inadequate.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Surely, when I speak for one-fifth of the population of Scotland, at least I deserve an answer, Mr. Speaker.

Commander Galbraith: I have announced the programme. The hon. Member heard what I had to say.

Mr. Rankin: No, I did not.

Commander Galbraith: Apart from that, the hon. Member was endeavouring to convey information and not asking a question.

Mr. Manuel: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how far the projects which he has mentioned fall short of the various proposals that have been made to him over the past three years for the various regional hospital boards in Scotland? Could he also say what protective measures he is taking to safeguard the continued provision of houses in Scotland, because undoubtedly building materials and fair numbers of men will be utilised in connection with the projects which he has mentioned? The regional hospital boards have been asking the Minister how far their programmes will be covered in connection with the proposals which he is making.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member will recognise that this is an announcement of the start of the programme and not the completion. This is the first stage and something which I believe every hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency should be very grateful to hear.

Commander Donaldson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether the further progress of the programme anticipates any increase in the facilities of Peel Hospital, which serves five counties in South-East Scotland, or the anticipated construction of a new general hospital for that area?

Commander Galbraith: That matter has been considered and I have informed my hon. and gallant Friend of the conclusions which have been reached. In accordance with the judgment of my right hon. Friend, it is not in the first priority.

Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how long it will be before he can give us a much more detailed programme and before we have the complete piece of window-dressing from him?

Commander Galbraith: I do not know about that, but the programme is for three years and I think it is enough to be going on with for the present.

Mr. Brooman-White: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend not to be unduly disturbed by the fact that when he builds more houses than the previous Government he is criticised for not doing more for schools and hospitals and that now he is doing more for hospitals he is criticised for not doing enough for houses?

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

CIVIL AVIATION (AIRCREWS)

Sir W. Wakefield: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 25th February, I shall call attention to the lack of alternative sources for trained aircrews for civil aviation, and move a Resolution.

MEDICAL PROFESSION (MANPOWER)

Mr. McAdden: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 25th February, I shall call attention to the problem of future medical manpower and entry into general medical practice, and move a Resolution.

ATOMIC ENERGY (PEACEFUL USE)

Mr. R. Bell: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 25th February, I shall call attention to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, and move a Resolution.

AIRPORTS LICENSING

Mr. Ian Harvey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Licensing Regulations at Airports in Great Britain.
This is a very simple and very restricted Measure. I would call the attention of all hon. Members to the fact that it establishes no new principle. It is, in fact, a Bill designed to provide a new administrative facility. It is a Bill which has considerable support from representative and responsible bodies, concerned primarily with travel. I disclose no particular secret when I say that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, during the course of their administration, were aware of the requirement which is outlined in this Measure and are not hostile to it.
This Measure would seek to make it possible for civil airports with international travel facilities to waive the present licensing laws under the Licensing Act, 1921, in respect only of bona fide travellers, that is to say, those people who pass the barrier and are restricted by the Customs rule from coming back again. It does not extend to those who, having gone to the airport to see people off or to visit, are not passing through the barrier to travel.
I know there is a little anxiety in certain quarters that this is a Bill which would make an airport a sort of all-night roadhouse for anyone who cared to look in and have a drink at any time. That is not the purpose of the Bill at all. It has clearly been indicated that it would apply only to airports with international services, of which there are only 15, and I have reason to believe that if it receives the approval of the House it will be applied only to the two most important international airports in the country, London Airport and Prestwick, the airports which are most concerned with international air travel.
The reason I seek the approval of the House to bring in the Bill is that its provisions would give our airways similar facilities to those enjoyed by their main American and other foreign competitors. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A find themselves considerably handicapped in that


when travellers on their lines are, for an undue time—sometimes because of the weather, and there are mechanical defects on occasions—stranded in the lounges they cannot go back beyond the Customs and they are unable, if the time is not within the licensing hours, to have any form of alcoholic refreshment.
This is a limitation which impairs the service. Moreover, the British Travel Association is satisfied that it does not encourage those who touch down to view our arrangements in a very satisfactory light. Because our airlines are a considerable source of revenue to us, and because it is of particular importance that we should encourage international travel, I believe that this is a facility which ought to be granted.
I said earlier that the Bill would create no new principle. If one is travelling by sea, it is possible for one to enjoy these facilities without difficulty, and it seems strange that those who have to travel by air for business reasons or choose to travel by air should be penalised as they are today.
I realise, and I think that all hon. Members by now realise, that there are some hon. Members who, for reasons of principle, oppose the Bill on the grounds that any extension of any form of alcoholic drinking is repugnant to them. I fully appreciate their opposition and the grounds on which they oppose the Measure, but if the House were to accept their contention it would have to reverse altogether all legislation dealing with licensing, and I do not believe that it would be prepared to do that.
Therefore, from the point of view of hon. Members generally, I do not think that this is an issue of principle. We are dealing with a practical administrative facility. Because I think it is a sound facility, because I think it will do good for British air travel and because I believe it will assist our airways to compete with their rivals, I hope very much that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill. I hope that hon. Members who oppose the Bill on principle will not withhold leave to bring it in, because I am sure that if they believe in a principle they will be prepared to discuss it.

Mr. James Hudson: I rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill, which, in another form, with not quite the

same definition, was introduced by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) in 1952. On that occasion the House considered the matter and 173 hon. Members voted for it and 173 against it. I hope that on this occasion I may be fortunate enough to win the one additional vote which is necessary for my purpose.
The Bill was on the tapis a great deal longer than 1952. It was reintroduced by the hon. Member at the end of 1953 and it was on the Order Paper most Fridays throughout 1954. It cannot be said that there was no discussion of the Bill, although it can be said that discussion was all on one side.
Here comes the Bill again. If the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) gets it on the Order Paper again, he will succeed in having those who are interested in the matter, either for or against it, hanging about for a long series of Fridays during the year. Not only will be able to hold up hon. Members on Fridays but he will have the whole temperance movement and the Churches, who showed themselves very interested in the matter last year, again lobbying us and adding very greatly to the pressures and maybe, the inconveniences which hon. Members have to suffer. I am offering something to hon. Members when I suggest that this is a good opportunity to get rid of what will prove to be an intolerable nuisance.
The hon. Gentleman says that his Bill introduces no new principle. My reply is that he offers a Bill which to the extent that it seeks to extend facilities for drinking is in itself a breach of the licensing laws, and that if it were carried it would offer encouragement for similar breaches in many other directions.
When the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale introduced the subject two or three years ago, his principal point was the convenience of not so much the business men referred to today but foreigners, and he said that foreigners disliked to find liquor laws so different from the ones to which they were accustomed. It seemed to me then, and it still seems to me, that meeting the requirements of foreigners is a poor sort of reason for making breaches in our law. All sorts of alterations might follow. We might give the facilities to a few people who want them, but we should seriously upset other interests.
For example, if there were to be drinking facilities beyond the Customs barrier and beyond the barrier where passports are examined at international airports, there is no safeguard in the Bill against what occurs now on ships crossing the Channel—drinking being obtained at a price free of Customs charges. If there is to be a place for drinking at airports beyond the Customs barrier, one can well imagine the attraction that it will hold for bibulous travellers.
It is not merely that, as a temperance reformer, I object to this sort of extension. I suggest that those who are engaged and are themselves licensed in the trade are entitled to ask by what right they should be subject to competition of this sort. When all parties in the country have co-operated to build up licensing laws which carefully balance all sorts of moral considerations and the claims of all sorts of interests, why should there be this upset to meet the requirements of people who are so fond of drinking that they cannot leave it alone even when travelling by air?
I will come to a further reason why we should not listen too readily to claims of this sort. I am not advancing my case merely on the grounds of the teetotaller. I dare say that if I had not risen hon. Members on that side of the House, who generally pose as friends of the licensed trade, might have made the point that I am making, which is that this proposal, which is unfair to the licensed trade, is also objectionable from the point of view of air travel.
How far is this consistent with the comfort and safety of air travel? I expect that the hon. Member for Harrow, East will have noted the many speeches I made on this subject on Fridays last year. A court case was brought against a man who found his way on to an aeroplane. He was so under the influence of drink that he was able to break his way into the pilot's cabin and instruct him how and where to fly. It is true that the crew seems to have been able to do something with him for the time being and then he was brought to court and heavily fined, but there is no satisfaction in that from the point of view of the safety of the plane.
To give some people the satisfaction of drinking beyond the Customs barrier

—whatever price is paid for the liquor beyond that barrier—will mean that some risk to the plane will be run and that is something which cannot be justified in any circumstances. It may be said that anyhow drink is already supplied on the planes. Unfortunately, that is so. I think it is objectionable, but at least the very capable employees of the air services are in a position to discover the condition of the air travellers on the plane and they can make up their minds whether more liquor ought to be supplied to them. It would be possible, by allowing travellers to drink in the sort of places the hon. Member for Harrow, East wants and then turning them on to the planes, to leave the hostess to do what she can. That is surely an intolerable state of affairs.

Mr. Ian Harvey: We are all enjoying what the hon. Member is saying, but it is open to the very competent staff of the airlines to prevent any passenger who arrives in that state—I do not submit that passengers are likely to do so—from getting on the plane at all.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member relies on the competence of persons employed on the aeroplanes to do that. The president of one of the most important American airlines has stated that any passenger obviously under the influence of drink is not to be admitted to the planes. The need for that would be a good deal less likely to arise if the sort of proposal now being put to the House were avoided.
This is a wanton and irresponsible proposal. It is a proposal that certainly ought not to be discussed, unless it is to be related to the general question of licences in all places where liquor is being provided. Until that is done, I hope that the House will make up its mind, as it almost did in 1952, and reject this Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. IAN HARVEY and Mr. RUSSELL were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. JAMES HUDSON and Mr. HASTINGS for the Noes, but it appeared, on the Tellers coming to the Table, that a Member who had not been appointed had told for the Ayes.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER directed the House to proceed again to a Division.

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 137.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[4.25 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Grimond, J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Page R. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Paget, R. T.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Parker, J.


Arbuthnot, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Perkins, Sir Robert


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bacon, Miss Alies
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Heath, Edward
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Barber, Anthony
Higgs, J. M. C.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bartley, P.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Profumo, J. D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Raikes, Sir Victor


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ramsden, J. E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hollis, M. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bennett, Sir William (Woodside)
Holman, P.
Redmayne, M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Holt, A. F.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hope, Lord John
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bishop, F. P.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Blyton, W. R.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Roper, Sir Harold


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hurd, A. R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Scott, Sir Donald


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Sharples, Maj. R. C.


Bullus, Wine Commander, E. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Shepherd, William


Burden, F. F. A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Carr, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cary, Sir Robert
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Chapman, W. D.
Kaberry, D.
Snow, J. W.


Clarke, Col, Sir Ralph (East Grinstead)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Speir, R. M.


Colegate, Sir W. A.
Leather, E. H. C.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lindsay, Martin
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lloyd George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lookwood, Lt.Col. J. C.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Longden, Gilbert
Teeling, W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Luoas, P. B. (Brentford)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKibbin, A. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Tilney, John


Donner, Sir P. W.
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Drewe, Sir C.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Eden, J. B. (Bournemoutn, West)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Erroll, F. J.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn.Sir Reginald
Vosper, D. F.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Fienburgh, W.
Maudling, R.
Wall, Major Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
Mayhew C. P.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel
Mellor, Sir John
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Wellwood, W.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fort, R.
Mott-Radolyffe, C. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Foster, John
Mulley, F. W.
Wigg, George


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Nicholls, Harmar
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gammans, L. D.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wills, G.


Glover, D.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Godber, J. B.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Wyatt, W. L.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nugent, G. R. H.



Gough, C. F. H.
Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Sir Fergus
Oakshott, H. D.
Mr. Russell and Mr. Ian Harvey.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pearson, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Popplewell, E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss M.
Porter, G.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Holmes, Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Attlee Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hoy, J. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Bence, C. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Beswick, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Black, C. W.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rhodes, H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robertson, Sir David


Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Keenan, W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Coldrick, W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, G. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Steele, T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edelman, M.
McGhee, H. G.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, J.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Stanley (Wedimbwy)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wade, D. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Wallace, H. W.


Finch, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Watkins, T. E.


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weitzman, D.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Manuel, A. C.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gooch, E. G.
Messer, Sir F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, Anthony
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Willis, E. G.


Hale, Leslie
Mort, D. L.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Owen, W. J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hamilton, W. W.
Padley, W. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hannan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Yates, V. F.


Hardy, E. A.
Pannell, Charles



Hargreaves, A.
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Parkin, B. T.
Mr. Hastings and


Hayman, F. H.
Paton, J.
Mr. James Hudson.


Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Mr. Ian Harvey: Mr. George Rogers, Mr. Russell, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, Mr. Crosland, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. Follick, Mr. John Rodgers, Mr. Fienburgh and myself.

Mr. M. Follick: On a point of order. I heard my name called. I am not backing the Bill.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: It seems that the hon. Member's name was included in the list in error. Is that right?

Mr. Follick: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's name should be deleted. We cannot spend any more time upon this.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is it not possible that some hon.

Members may have been persuaded to support the Bill in view of the fact that the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) was on it?

Mr. Speaker: There are a number of possibilities, but all hon. Members are supposed to be as vigilant as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick).
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian Harvey, Mr. George Rogers, Mr. Russell, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, Mr. Crosland, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. John Rodgers, and Mr. Fienburgh.

AIRPORTS LICENSING

Bill to amend Licensing Regulations at Airports in Great Britain presented accordingly and read the First Time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th February and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(ENLISTMENT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to oppose the Clause. We should have an explanation from the War Office of the final paragraph in page 2, which says:
In this Part of this Act the expression 'minimum age for man's service' means the age of seventeen years and six months, except that in such classes of case as may be prescribed it means the age of seventeen years.
It is a mystery to me how the War Office arrives at the minimum age for man's service as 17 years and 6 months. Is it the view of the Minister that a young person then reaches the age of discretion and manhood? If so, how does he explain that a young person can be called up to be a soldier at the age of 17½ and yet not have the right to vote until he is 21? Young people can be called upon to become soldiers before they are allowed to have any say in the policy of the country, and they may even be despatched to some remote part of the world. Indeed, they may be called upon to sacrifice their lives before they reach the age at which they can vote.
This age limit is too low. At the time of the Korean war many hon. Members protested that boys were being called up after only a few months' training—in some cases they had not had more than eight weeks' Army training in this country—and despatched to some remote part of the world to fight in a war about which they had had no say. They had become conscripts, they had not had sufficient military training, and some lost their lives. If the age of 21 is to be regarded by the law as that at which a young person is able to exercise the franchise and become a citizen, he should not be called upon at the age of 17½ to perform service which might mean his death in a war of

which he does not approve. I submit that the Government should take the Clause back and put it more into line with the general principle that is accepted in law.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): This matter was considered most carefully both by the Service Departments and by the Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman pursued his argument to its logical conclusion, he would say that until a youth was of a sufficient age to vote and have some influence on the policy of the country, he should not be called up. The hon. Gentleman nods. Frankly, that would mean that nobody could be called up for National Service, nor, indeed, join the Army, until he was 21, which would be an innovation which would be unwelcome to the vast majority of young men. It would make nonsense of the Act, because it would mean that any young man who wished to make the Army his career would have to wait until he was 21.
The matter has been most carefully considered, and I believe that, in its present form, the Clause is adequate to ensure that no man does anything rash without his parents' consent. As it stands, the Clause is completely satisfactory.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), if I may continue to call him my hon. Friend. He asked for an explanation of the meaning of the last paragraph of the Clause. Though I am probably years out of date, I thought the minimum normal age for enlistment was 18. I am now told that it is 17½ years, but subsection (5) of the Clause provides that in certain cases it may be 17 years. The Clause does not specify what these cases are, nor, as far as I am aware, are they specified anywhere else in the Bill. Surely, the Committee is entitled to be informed about that, and is entitled to know what these cases are.
Everyone realises the dilemma in which the Secretary of State is placed in framing a Clause like this. Everyone realises that it is very undesirable that we should have to call up lads under 21 and ask them to exercise their decision and determination for life. As I understand the Clause—and with very great respect for what the


right hon. Gentleman says about lads not doing this without the advice of their parents—it seems to me that it means precisely the opposite. The provision about the consent of the parents applies only to lads under 17, and not to those who have attained the age of 17½.
Indeed, as I have read the Clause—and I may be wrong, as I very frequently am—the right hon. Gentleman need not get the consent of the parents where the lad is 17½, or, in special circumstances, 17. At least, that is a matter on which the Committee, before it passes the Clause, should have more information, and I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to give it. It is not proper for me to refer to the next Clause, but it is quite obvious that these two Clauses are to be read together. When considering the next Clause, we shall have to refer to enlistment for general or special service of lads of 18 who have enlisted when they were 17.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee a little more information than he gave on the last occasion.

Mr. George Thomas: There is a special case where young lads from orphanages and similar institutions enlist in the Armed Forces for a long period, and obtain the permission of the responsible authorities which are their guardians, whereas such permission may not have been given by parents. Those young men who later develop conscientious objections to military service, or get into difficulty, will be placed in a much worse position if they enlist under the terms of this Clause. I therefore hope that the Minister will bear in mind what my hon. Friends have said on this point.

Mr. Head: I think the question of conscientious objectors is a matter for a new Clause which we are to take later on. That point will arise then.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) asked about 17½ being the minimum age for enlistment, and why any exception should be made at the age of 17. Those exceptions are made to cover the categories of enlistment which include overseas enlistment and in the case of certain foreign units. An instance is that of the Gurkhas, and, again, the Royal Marines, where the minimum age

for enlistment is 17 years. This provision is inserted in the Bill to cover these exceptions and these particular categories.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(ENLISTMENT FOR GENERAL OR CORPS SERVICE AND APPOINTMENT TO AND TRANSFER BETWEEN CORPS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I want to say a few words on a point which arises on the Clause, which says:
(1) Recruits may, in pursuance of regulations of the Army Council under this Part of this Act, be enlisted for service in particular corps, but save as may be provided by such regulations recruits shall be enlisted for general service.
Subsection (2) provides that
The competent military authority shall as soon as practicable appoint a recruit, if enlisted for service in a corps, to that corps, and if enlisted for general service, to such corps as the competent military authority may think fit:
Provided that a recruit enlisted for general service before attaining the age of eighteen years need not be appointed to a corps until he attains that age.
If I understood what the right hon. Gentleman said in his last answer—and I am by no means clear about what he did say—this provision means that a lad who joins at 17 can be posted to a corps for general service at the age of 18, and can be sent abroad to take part in a war at the age of 18. It is important that we should know whether this is true. There may be people who disagree with me about this, but the House of Commons has always been disposed to take the view that, although in time of war in which this country may be engaged, lads have been sent abroad at 18—and a great many of my friends were sent abroad and were killed before they were 18 in the war of 1914–18—when we are conscripting soldiers they ought not to be sent abroad at 18 to take part in a war. It is within my recollection that engagements were given saying that, in that case, they would not normally be sent abroad until they were 19 and had been fully trained.
We are dealing here primarily with voluntary enlistment in the Regular Army, although a great many of the


Clauses of the Bill will apply to compulsory enlistment of soldiers as well. It seems to me, in these circumstances, that the Clause is ambiguous. The right hon. Gentleman, in his explanation—and I am grateful to him for rising again, because he is always courteous and tries to be helpful—said that the matter had been carefully considered. He knows that this is a Bill which we welcome in the sense that we welcome the changes which it makes in the present law. Frankly, I do not welcome any Army Bill, but I am sure that this will be welcomed for the improvements made through the co-operative efforts of both sides of the House.
I do not want to indulge in factious criticism, but it is no explanation for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has put in the age of 17 in the case of the Gurkhas and the Royal Marines. Why should the Gurkhas and the Royal Marines join at 17? Why should we want men to join the Royal Marines at the age of 17 before becoming soldiers when we are told that the Royal Marines are only half soldiers anyway? How does it come about? I remember that once in "Punch" a distinguished marine was referred to as—
… a sort of giddy hermaphrodite, soldier and sailor, too.
Why should a hermaphrodite be treated differently from either a Hermes or an Aphrodite? Why is there this special provision? This is not an explanation. I think it is reasonable that the country should be told, and I therefore ask the Secretary of State to take us into his confidence. I am sure that we shall make more rapid progress if he does that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is another sentence in the Clause which deserves the attention of the Committee. Subsection (3) says that
(3) A soldier of the regular forces may at any time be transferred by order of the competent military authority from one corps to another:
I believe that the Bill should be examined meticulously by the Committee, because, since this is the only opportunity we are likely to have to discussing an Army Bill for one or two generations, and as it implies that we are to have conscription for another 50 years at least, we owe it to our constituents that we should examine very carefully every detail that is likely to affect them.
I have seen a good many recruiting posters in my time, which, if the Clause becomes law, will result in great injustice to the people who enlist. We find posters and literature telling young people that if they join the Army they will learn a trade, become engineers, and so on. The prospect is held out to young, potential recruits that they may learn to drive motor cars, and that they will be trained to pursue some useful occupation in time of peace.
That is used as a justification for driving them into the Army. They are not told that once they are in the Army, the authorities can transfer them to some other part of the Army.

Mr. George Wigg: Will my hon. Friend be good enough to read the rest of the Clause, and perhaps save himself a lot of time?

Mr. Hughes: I have read the rest of the Clause, and I know the point which my hon. Friend wants to make. Does he suggest that my argument is entirely without foundation?

Mr. Wigg: No, not entirely, but almost without. The Select Committee very carefully put in an important safeguard that, except in time of war, a soldier subject to military law cannot be transferred, except with the authority of the Army Council.

Mr. Hughes: That does not deal with my point.

Mr. Wigg: If a man enlists in a corps to learn a trade, he cannot be moved willy-nilly, except in time of war or except with the authority of the Army Council. We put in that important safeguard. If my hon. Friend wants to criticise the Clause he must find a better form of words than the ones that we have used.

Mr. Hughes: I did think of a better form of words, but it is one thing to think of them and another to get them on the Order Paper.
I was not entirely led into an ambush by my hon. Friend, because I know the point that he is making. When he said "almost" he gave the case away. If the word "almost" were put on the recruiting posters, then the position would be rather different. Even if what my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct, I think that the Secretary of State for War


ought to be prosecuted for false pretences for putting these posters on the hoardings.
I suggest that the youth of this country is being led up the garden path by being drawn into an occupation on grounds which are not clear to them. The Clause makes it absolutely clear that once they are in the Army, the Army can break these promises, and the soldier will soon be disillusioned as a result.
I was not on the Select Committee. I know that throughout the discussion on this Bill, because the Minister cannot think of any logical answers to the questions that I put, he will fall back on the regular formula—that this was carefully considered by the Select Committee, which was set up and largely dominated by people of the point of view of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I suggest that we should have some amplification of the brief. The civilian, and not just the soldier, is concerned about this, and we are entitled to protect the young people.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: May I say, in the hope that the Committee will pass this Clause, that it is a great improvement on Sections 84 and 85 of the Army Act? It is true that there is a great advantage, perhaps not so much for British troops, as for colonial troops. It used to be said in the Colonial Territories that there was competition between tailors to put up the sign, "Trained in Her Majesty's Forces," though that was not thought to be as good a qualification as saying, "Trained in Her Majesty's Prison"—the period of service there often being longer.
The Clause does, at any rate, safeguard to a very large extent the right of the soldier to continue in the corps of his own choice, and this is a very important principle. The Select Committee considered whether it would be possible to make it an absolute right, and we came to the conclusion, after hearing the evidence, that it was not possible so to do. I may be one of those unfortunate Members under the influence of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), whose influence so pervaded the Committee, but, nevertheless, I hope that the Committee will accept the Clause as drafted, which is a great improvement, I think, on the old Army Act.

Mr. G. Thomas: We have reached a sorry pass when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) takes it upon himself to be the spokesman of the Government, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) turns his artillery on my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).
The Minister ought not to think of this as a point of no substance. He ought not to keep his feet on the table and look at us as much as to say, "Talk for as long as you like." This question of youngsters under the age of 18 is one which disturbs the public mind very much. I want to know if a youngster is able to go into the corps of his own choice, and if it is guaranteed under the Clause that he can stay once he is there.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend should read subsection (2).

Mr. Thomas: Secondly, I should like to know whether young men under the age of 18 can, under the Clause, be sent abroad. It is very important for us all to know that. I remember that this point was raised at the time of the Korean trouble, when public opinion was horrified at youngsters of 19 being sent out to Korea. There were Questions asked in the House, and there was, I believe, a debate on this subject. I should like to know, if the Clause is accepted, whether we are allowing young people under the age of 18 to be sent abroad whenever the military authorities so require.

Mr. Head: I should like to correct the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). There was nothing in my intention or posture to suggest that I welcome everybody talking for as long as they like.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Including the Minister?

Mr. Head: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I think that one part of this question has been ably answered for me by the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing). That is a welcome and unprecedented situation with which I am very pleased. Another point, which is welcomed with complete agreement on my side, was made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). That is perhaps


even more remarkable, and welcome it just as much.
I would say to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who has contributed at all hours to our debates on defence, that this is a Bill which has been considered by a Select Committee, by the Service Departments, and by a great many people, who have given it a lot of thought, not merely from the point of view of the Service, but from the point of view of common sense and a fair deal for the soldier. The hon. Gentleman does not agree with the principle that it entails, but I suggest to him quite frankly that, if he likes nothing of it and if he wishes to give us his views, which I am certain will be excellent throughout, he can ask for a lot of explanation—but I would say that this has been considered from the point of view of a fair deal for the soldier.
So far as the transfer from corps to corps is concerned, I think that the hon. Gentleman must admit that the soldier has a very good safeguard indeed in the Clause. There was a witty speech which reminded me of the one about the Isle of Man Parliament and the Home Guard Bill. I do not know how seriously the hon. Member wishes me to take that one or this one, but I would, however, take him seriously and say that to take exception to the age of 17, which is put in for the benefit of one of the finest corps there is—the Corps of Gurkhas—would be a great mistake. Young men mature early in the Far East, and they wish to join at 17. They have done so for a long time, and this arrangement has been perfectly satisfactory. I hope that the hon. Member will not quibble over something which is a provision for a corps which has done great service to the British Army, and which is in a very thriving condition.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(CHANGE OF CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AFTER ENLISTMENT FOR TERM OF TWENTY-TWO YEARS.)

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, at the end, to insert:
(c) to terminate his service at the end of a period of three years by giving three months notice in writing.

I submit that the Minister must give a more convincing answer to this Amendment than to the other, because now we know the "patter"—that a Select Committee and the Service Departments have carefully considered this, that the House of Commons need not worry and that it can be rushed through without an adequate explanation from the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was out for a fair deal for the soldier. Here is an opportunity to give a fair deal to the soldier.
When we consider that we must offer a career to the soldier, we must also consider allowing the soldier to ask that he should not be in an unfair position compared with people in careers in other spheres of our national life—in other nationalised industries such as the Coal Board or any other honourable nationalised industry. The Army is not the only honourable nationalised industry, although it may have been the first.
If the Minister desires to make the Army really popular—which it certainly is not at present—he should give to the soldier who has had three years of it, and gained some experience, the opportunity to offer his resignation, after giving three months' notice. I know that this will upset the War Office because it is a new idea. There is nothing more disturbing to a Government Department than a new idea, and the impact sometimes has a very curious result.
Here we are arguing things out. We are not just receiving orders from a superior officer which, naturally, have to be obeyed by hon. Members on this side of the Committee because, for the time being, there happens to be this extraordinary coalition between the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). That may be a very formidable coalition, but it certainly is not infallible. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch will adduce some new reason, and not merely say that this is slightly better than the previous Army Act. It would be a curious monstrosity were it not.
I invite the hon. and learned Member once again to be gallant and chivalrous, and come to the rescue of the Minister, who showed in the early stages of this Bill that he was completely unable to


give a logical answer to a question from a civilian.

Dr. H. Morgan: He will have to do some more praying.

Mr. Hughes: That may be so.
I have in mind, not the conscientious objector, who is an entirely different person, but a soldier who enlists, believing that the Army will afford a career, and then, at the end of three years, finds himself disillusioned. Sometimes it does not take three years to disillusion a soldier. I have known soldiers who were disillusioned after three days or even three hours. If we propose to talk about rights, about British democracy and freedom, and all the high-sounding words which cover some of the very sinister and ugly realities of this Bill, that all sounds very well, but we must try to probe underneath.
There is no doubt that a soldier who has been three years in the Army and who is an intelligent person, will read the newspapers and other literature. He will listen to the wireless. He may even read HANSARD and the speeches made in this House. He may well come to this conclusion: "I have got into the wrong career because this is not a career, it is a cul-de-sac." Even if he only reads the "Daily Mirror" he will have seen so many shattering questions about the Army as a means of defending this country that he may become quite disillusioned and arrive at the conclusion, "This Army is obsolete; the Secretary of State for War is obsolete." He may even think that those Labour Members of Parliament who support the Secretary of State for War and come to his rescue are obsolete.
That is not only my opinion. I am reinforced these days by very powerful recruits to a cause which, with little support, I have advocated in this House for some time. For example, I never expected that I should open the "Manchester Guardian" and find a remarkable speech by General MacArthur. I remembered the time when we in this House regarded General MacArthur as Enemy No. 1. I may have said some slightly impolite things about him myself. I certainly think that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch would

not want it to be said that he is less progressive than General MacArthur. But General MacArthur has become a pacifist, which is an extraordinary development. Now I even have hopes of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan).
It may well be that some ordinary soldier, who has served three years in the Army and who would not read any speech of mine, would read the speech of this American general who has become a pacifist. The soldier might say, "I must read this," because a private soldier is entitled to read with great respect what the generals say, in order to find out how their ideas are progressing. Even I was surprised to read the speech of General MacArthur—especially some of the things he had to say. Had I not been a pacifist, he might have converted me.
We can imagine an ordinary soldier in the world today, thinking in terms of the atom bomb and what service he can best render in a hydrogen-bomb war, and reading the discussions on modern defence, and then saying, "Look here, I have come definitely to the conclusion that this is a phoney occupation for me." If he follows that up and reads, for example, Lord Russell or Liddell Hart, he may well come to the same conclusion.
So I submit that there are people—who do not approach the question of service in the Army from the point of view of the conscientious objector—who may come to the conclusion, on perfectly realistic and rational grounds, that they would be serving the country more usefully in another occupation. Such a person might well say, "I should like to opt out of this career, because I do not wish to continue in it and merely be obsolete."
He would go to his commanding officer, who would say, "It does not matter to us what General MacArthur has said: you are bound for a number of years." Then the soldier might say, "Well, I have seen the recruiting poster on the Underground, 'You are somebody in the Army of today,' but I wish to resign." Whereupon the Army authorities would say, "Oh no, you cannot do that."
I submit that we shall have a progressively large number of people who enlisted in the Army, but who have come


to the conclusion that as citizens they can perform their National Service in a different way from that of being in uniform and being ordered about by what one of the brigadiers on the opposite benches once described as "tin-pot Hitlers." I submit that it is not treason or disloyalty. It may be merely common sense and logic which drives an ordinary soldier to the conclusion that it is reasonable that he should terminate his appointment in the Army by giving three months' notice.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has given us a wide-ranging speech about many aspects of the Amendment, which I am sure he has moved with all conviction, but frankly it is both illogical and inequitable. It hardly makes sense to call up for National Service a man who has a two-year full-time liability and a 3½ years' Reserve liability, and to abolish the Reserve liability of a man who volunteers. I call that inequitable as between the two men.
Secondly I think it is illogical and inequitable because, as the hon. Gentleman proposes, a man who joins on a 22-year engagement shall, by the three months' notice, escape his Reserve liability, but a man who joins on a three-year engagement shall still have that liability. I call that most illogical and inequitable as between the two men, and for those two reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: The one thing I have in common with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is a desire to get rid of National Service at the earliest opportunity. Like him, I believe that National Service will be with us for many years to come. It may well be right to have National Service in some form or other for another 50 years, whatever the state of world tension.
I have always argued that the Government should turn their thoughts in the direction of seeking, by every means possible, to build up the strength of the Regular Army. I do not think that my hon. Friend has done himself justice in putting down this Amendment without thinking out clearly its implications because, if it were adopted, it would be cutting at the root of some of the reforms which the Government have; introduced.
I am not a believer in the three years' engagement. I have said on many occasions in the past that it was one of the most disastrous steps taken by any Secretary of State for War. Equally I have said that I do not see the way out. Indeed, I do not believe that there is any simple way out of this dilemma which draws the point of departure from the Regular Army at three years, because all the evidence points in the direction that the longer a man serves, the more likely he is to stay in the Army.
I believe the figures are that at three years' service the rate of prolongation is about 15 per cent., but for men with 12 years' service the rate of re-engagement is about 70 per cent. The Secretary of State is on record as having said that the Government hoped that they would get 33⅓ per cent.—

Mr. Head: For the fourth, and I hope the last time, may I point out that the hon. Gentleman has persistently misquoted me as having said "hoped"? I have said clearly three times that, from the point of view of the manpower structure of the Army, ideally to retain the correct proportions of the Regular Army re-engagement would be at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. The hon. Gentleman has stuffed the word "hoped" into my mouth so often—

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry, but as the right hon. Gentleman says that this is the fourth time, perhaps we shall now get it right.
I assume that when the Government introduce a reform that they hope it will be successful. Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that he has come to the House of Commons to ask the authority of the House to amend these Sections in order to introduce something which will not work? Surely he is not as irresponsible as that? I have never charged the right hon. Gentleman with irresponsibility—no, I have argued that he is muddleheaded and rather stupid. He saw what was happening in the Air Force and, without stopping to think, assumed that what was good enough for the Air Force was good enough for the Army.
5.15 p.m.
I gave the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. I thought I was being generous in saying that he hoped it would be a success. I always knew it was nonsense. I have said that 13 times


if not 33 times, on any occasion on which I have been in order. So I say that this is the biggest piece of nonsense that any Secretary of State for War has ever suggested. It will do the greatest damage ever done to a Regular Army. If I said that the right hon. Gentleman "hoped", it was only because I was being generous, but I will use any word he likes, although it is on record in the 1953 debate that both he and his hon. Friends said "hoped"—no, Sir Rhys, I am quite in order—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): So long as the hon. Member does not widen the debate too far.

Mr. Wigg: Perhaps I may say that I hope I am in order, but I think I am, because I am dealing with the point about the three years' engagement.
I can use any word the right hon. Gentleman likes. It is the fact that Government policy is based on a 33⅓ per cent. prolongation, which they think will give the Army all the internal recruiting that is required, but in fact they will not get 10 per cent. Indeed, I am being generous in saying 10 per cent. By every device I know I have tried to get the figures of the prolongations we are getting. I have put Questions on the Order Paper to the Minister of Defence, I have put Questions this way and that way to the Secretary of State for War—

Mr. Hale: May I interrupt my hon. Friend, because I find myself in the position of the Life Brigade—cannon to the right and cannon to the left volleying and thundering—and I am getting nervous of what it is all about. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) put down an Amendment with which I told him that I did not agree. Strangely enough, I still disagree with him after the right hon. Gentleman sat down. The Amendment seems to me to give a man the right to give three months' notice at the end of three years' service on a Regular engagement. I am not sure what the point about the normal termination has to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 5 he will see that a soldier already has the right to go out on completion of 22 years' service.
I am using the Amendment to make my position clear in regard to the three years' engagement and the 22 years' engagement. The reform to give everybody in the Army eventually the right to leave at successive periods of two years is a desirable long-term reform, but it could have disastrous results. I support my colleagues on the Select Committee, but once again I must point out to the Secretary of State and to the country the disastrous nature of this reform, because eventually it will fail.
The Secretary of State has already cut into the number of men coming into the Army. At one time one could not get into the sergeants' messes of the Regular Army before completing six or seven years' service, but before long they will be filled with two groups: youngsters with three years' service and a large number of men at the end of their service.
I do not see an easy way out, and that is why I have pleaded before, and I plead again, with the Secretary of State for War. I hope he will listen. He has not listened in the past, and I know no way of applying pressure to make him do so, but I hope there are still some responsible minds on the Government Front Bench who will recognise the serious position which is being created for the Regular Army, and will do something about it.
Whether one has served in the Regular Army or not, we all have an interest in the solution of this problem, because tied up with it is the length of National Service and of its becoming a permanent part of our national life. The remedy lies not in the extent of our commitments but in the quality of the Regular Army and the number of Regular recruits we can get from outside and the prolongations we can get from inside. Once again, therefore, I have made my position clear and have put into its correct place the word "hoped."

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: May I briefly reply to the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), which, I think, was based on a misconception? I listened carefully to what he said, and I think the same sort of theme ran through the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—

Mr. Hale: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hutchison: —it was apparent in his interjection, at all events—that the soldier was dissatisfied with the Army as a career and wanted to get out and take up some other career. If that is the burden of the hon. Gentleman's complaint, the Clause allows the soldier to do so. The only difference between us is the difference between three months and six months, because under the Clause he has to give six months' notice before being transferred to the Reserve, when he can then take up any career that he likes. I think that the hon. Gentleman confused service with service with the Colours.

Mr. Hale: When I made an interjection in the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I said that I did not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), Why I should be dragged into these things by the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison) I do not know. I apologise to my hon. Friend. He was technically wrong and I, as usual, was technically right. I thought he was speaking about the Amendment, but he indicated that he was speaking to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," on which he was making excellent and appropriate observations. I always listen to my hon. Friend with great interest, for he is one Member of the Opposition with whom I often find myself in agreement on military matters. When I referred to "cannon to the left of me and cannon to the right of me," I was speaking in the geographical and not the political sense.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: I should like some elucidation on subsection (6), which deals with the right of the soldier to determine his service. In lines 10 and 11 are these words:
or of the conferring on him of such other benefit or advantage as may be prescribed. …
It seems to me that enormous latitude is given to the authorities there, and I should like some explanation of what kind of benefit or advantage is contemplated which renders possible deprivation of the right to determine service. It might be possible to deprive a soldier of

this right for some mere triviality. I do not suggest that the administration deliberately does that, but I feel that we need some explanation of why those very wide words are used.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is one point of interpretation to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. Subsection (1, b) says that a person may determine his service at the end of a period of nine years. Then, as I read the Clause, thereafter it may be done at the end of any succeeding period of three years. I want to know why the subsequent period of three years is included. It seems reasonable to me that if a soldier may ask for his service to be determined after the expiration of nine years, between then and the expiration of 22 years he should be enabled to ask for determination of his service at any time.
I cannot see why this statutory period of three years should be included, as it may prevent a man from determining his service in circumstances in which it may be proper for him to do so. I cannot see why a man should be subjected to an arbitrary, inflexible period of three years throughout the whole of the intermediate period between the end of the nine years and the expiration of the 22 years. There can be no sense or logic in that.
Of course, there may be a good reason for this provision and I may not have apprehended it, but unless there is some reason which makes this arrangement essential, it surely cannot be justified. I would like the Minister to consider this arbitrary, inflexible rule of periods of three years and either justify it to the Committee or see whether it can be approximated to a more common sense arrangement.

Mr. Head: The question of the period of service for which a man is engaged was carefully considered and debated at considerable length when we brought in the 22-year engagement provision. This provision was introduced to enable a man to break his service at periods of three years throughout his 22 years' service. The arguments for and against that proposal were considered at great length. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) of one thing—and even the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will agree with this—and that is that we cannot run an Army


if a soldier can leave after a month's notice. The Army would be in very bad shape. If men got tired of the Army in Korea and could leave after a month's notice, where should we be?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Accepting that, can the Minister tell me whether there is any machinery in any of the Acts or in the Army administration whereby a man could terminate his service if the circumstances were sufficiently important?

Mr. Head: Yes, on compassionate grounds a man can get his release; and he can also purchase his discharge.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does not the Minister see that there may be very compelling grounds of the greatest hardship which may not have arisen at the end of nine years but may arise at the end of 10 years? Such circumstances might make it quite improper that a man should be forced to remain in the Army. He could have determined his service at the end of nine years; why should he not be allowed to do so at the end of 10 years when circumstances arise which justified him in doing so?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now developing his interjection into an argument.

Mr. Head: The hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that it is unfair if somebody should have afterthoughts and says, "I wish I had done something different a year ago if I had only known." That is something from which I suppose every hon. Member suffers from time to time. The point which the hon. and learned Gentleman raises is covered, because it is possible for a man to be released on compassionate grounds.
Failing that, the man can purchase his discharge. The hon. and learned Member thinks that is inadequate, apparently, but this period of three years throughout the 22-year engagement has immensely shortened the whole period involved in the system of engagements in the Army. To press us at this stage to go beyond that, when the House has already considered and decided on the 22-year engagement, is illogical.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hale: The Minister has said—and I am sure that, as he has said it, it must be true—that the man can obtain a compassionate release, but I am clear in my

recollection that two years ago I was told that the system of compassionate release had been abolished.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member is muddled. Compassionate postings have been abolished but compassionate release still exists. Compassionate postings were abolished five or six years ago when such a high proportion of the Army was overseas—80 per cent, of the fighting units—that it was impossible to give compassionate postings. But the system of compassionate release still stands. The hon. Member is confused. I hope I may now be allowed to answer the second point which was made.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Minister must not think that I am objecting to the three-year period. I am not objecting to that. The point I am raising is that if, during the three years, some strong ground arises on which the man ought to be permitted to leave the Forces, as far as I can see there are no means whereby he is able to terminate his service.

Mr. Head: That is equally true in the first three years, the second three years, the third three years and every other three years, and why the hon. and learned Member has suddenly seized on this third period of three years I do not know. It is inescapable and inevitable. We cannot have an Army which a man can leave suddenly because of an unforeseen situation.
The other question raised was that of the benefits conferred on a man and the prescribed list. What happens is that these are listed in the recruiting regulations and every man who goes on a course which involves an undertaking that he will not leave the Army is informed of that fact before he goes on the course, and asked whether he wants to go on it. If we send a man on a long radar course or something of that kind, apart from the expense of teaching him we have to remember that he becomes very much more attractive to industry as a consequence. To protect ourselves to a certain extent, we have to impose a stopper. In these cases, before he goes on the course he is asked whether he wishes to go and whether he realises that if he goes he will have an obligation to stay in the Army for whatever the period may be.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I understand the force of that, but it seems to me that the contingency is covered by the earlier words of the subsection,
Where a person, in consideration of his being permitted to undergo a prescribed course of instruction or a course of instruction of a prescribed class … has undertaken …
The circumstances to which the Secretary of State referred seem to be covered by those words, and, although I do not think it is a matter of great importance, I do not know why it is necessary to add the very wide words
or of the conferring on him of such other benefit or advantage …
In view of the fact that the whole essence of the subsection involves a volunteering on the soldier's part, my anxiety about it is perhaps not very great, from the point of view of the rights of soldiers. Nevertheless, any superfluous words in any legislation only create difficulty, and I should have thought that the Secretary of State's explanation did not justify the retention of those wide words.

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman says that I am muddled, and very frequently I am. I should not be in the least surprised if I were wrong on this occasion, for he is much more likely to know all the facts than I am. Nevertheless, on every application for compassionate release with which I have been concerned in the last four years—and I think all my hon. Friends are likely to agree that this is correct—I have been told that it is no longer granted, although an application can be made on financial grounds. I gather that the Secretary of State does not agree with me, but I can show him the correspondence. Furthermore, I had a case of compassionate posting last month.

Mr. Head: It is not much good my arguing with the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that we have granted a great many releases on compassionate grounds. I am sure hon. Members will agree. I do not know how the hon. Member got his compassionate posting, but I should think that what happened was that it was not a compassionate posting at all. In certain instances, for example, if a boy's mother is ill and he is in a place near his home, we delay the posting away from his home, but it is not a compassionate posting in the sense that we post a man to a particular

place for those reasons. All I can say is that if the hon. Member has got his compassionate posting he would be better advised to keep quiet about it, because, in fact, they are not granted.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(RIGHT OF RECRUIT TO PURCHASE DISCHARGE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. G. Thomas: I am sorry to take up the time of the Committee, but I am disturbed about the methods which are adopted by the War Office in connection with the right of recruits to purchase their discharge. Yesterday, the Minister answered Questions about a trooper who was buying his discharge from the Army. I want to know whether, under the Clause, if a soldier is abroad and purchases his discharge, the Minister will claim for himself powers to make the soldier pay his fare home and then, when he arrives in this country, the War Office will wash their hands of him financially but will impose upon him all the obligations as if he were still in the Services.
Under the Clause, it appears that the Minister is to persist in what I think is a most iniquitous system of treating these men as soldiers for purposes of discipline but as civilians for purposes of finance. It seems to me that the Minister is not at all clear in his mind—or perhaps I ought to say that I am not at all clear in my mind—as to when the man becomes a civilian when he purchases his discharge.
The Minister knows that he has had brought to his attention the case of a man whose mother paid over £100 for him to buy his discharge from Egypt, with another £25 to have him brought home to this country; but under these powers, when such a man arrives in this country, the Minister's servant, the Army, in London, tells him that he must pay his own fare to whatever camp the Minister wishes to direct him for purposes of obtaining his discharge.
It is possible in such cases—indeed, it happened in the case to which I referred—for the man to be without English


money, if he has purchased his discharge while abroad. The Minister does not seem to care what happens to these soldiers, who have to hitch-hike as best they can across the country. That is what happened in a recent case.
Will the Minister give a guarantee that that sort of procedure will not be followed if this Clause is allowed to pass? I do not think we should let it pass if that custom is to persist. When a man buys his discharge from the Army he must know the time when he is free, and until he is free to pass any military policeman in the street without a shudder he ought to have a guarantee that the Minister will provide a travelling warrant to the camp, wherever it is, to which he directs the man. I shall be grateful if the Minister will deal with that point.

Mr. Wigg: I did not want to ask whether my hon. Friend was in order, but in my opinion he is not.

Mr. Thomas: How many chairmen have we?

Mr. Wigg: That is my opinion.
There is a right here for the soldier, a very important right indeed, and it is quite different from the case my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) was discussing. Whether an application to purchase a discharge involving the payment of £100 shall be granted or not is a matter for decision by the competent military authority, but this Clause is to safeguard the right of a young man who enlists but finds he does not like the Army and wants to leave. It is a very important right which has been in the Army Act for a very long time. I would be very sorry to see it go. I must point out that the right to purchase has nothing to do with the case raised by my hon. Friend.
I am sorry if I appeared to be discourteous, but I am most anxious to get the position clear so that the case put by my hon. Friend should not induce the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this statutory right which allows a recruit to purchase his discharge because he finds the Army is not to his liking.

Mr. Head: I was about to point out that this Clause applies to recruits, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said, and is quite different from the point

raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) in a Question and again in this debate. I do not want to get out of order, but I should say that the other purchase of discharge under regulations and the paying of the passage home have always been in existence since purchase of discharge was introduced. There is no innovation about it; it is done by regulation. I could go into the details with the hon. Members perhaps privately, as it may be out of order to go into them now. Perhaps he will have a word with me about that aspect later.

Mr. G. Thomas: The Minister has explained what the Clause means, with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who seems to be one of the parents of this Bill. So long as there is a guarantee that recruits are not to be landed in financial difficulty, I have no objection to the Clause and, naturally, would support it.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19.—(FALSE ANSWERS IN ATTESTATION PAPER)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hale: Subsection (2) of the Clause seems a very curious subsection in view of the ordinary law of the country, which I thought always prevailed. It seems to me that if subsection (1) makes an offence against the civil law nothing can affect the rights of the civil court to try an offence and enlistment of the man concerned in the Armed Forces is probably immaterial. I therefore ask why this subsection is in the Clause at all.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member has sprung a legal point on me before I have had time properly to read the Clause.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: May I try to help the Minister?

Mr. Head: I think the point that
For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that a person may be proceeded against under this section notwithstanding that he has since become subject to military law.
means, having committed the offence beforehand, the person will be proceeded against. I think it is straightforward.

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman has not got the point at all. If one thing is clear in the law it is that military law is always subordinate to civil law and the prosecution of any man in the forces for any offence against the civil law is quite different from any offence against the Army Act, which is a matter for the military authorities. There are a number of matters which can be dealt with because they are offences against the criminal law administered under the civil law—I use the term "civil law" in contradistinction to military law and not in contradistinction to criminal law—by courts-martial as well as the civil courts. If there is one thing which is vital it is that the civil courts should prevail. Very often the civil courts say that as a matter of convenience a man should be remanded under military escort—

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: It may save time if I interrupt my hon. Friend and, as I was on the Committee, suggest what it means—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am trying to maintain order. I hope that hon. Members will wait their turn to catch my eye.

Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend gave way and I thought I might save time by making a suggestion.

The Deputy-Chairman: The object of giving way is to allow an interjection to be made, but not for the purpose of another speech.

Mr. Wyatt: That is exactly what I am trying to do, Sir Rhys. Might it not be that the Clause means that it might be discovered that a man had made a false answer before he was actually enlisted into the Army and that would be a mistake? It might be discovered that the false answer had been made when he was attested and he would still be proceeded against.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale: That is quite meaningless.
The whole point I am putting, but which, in view of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) I do not seem to be putting clearly, is that if a man commits an offence by making a false statement, knowing it to be false, he has committed an offence—

Brigadier O. L. Prior - Palmer: An offence against civilian law.

Mr. Hale: Exactly, this Clause says so.
He has committed an offence against civilian law and is liable to be prosecuted in a civilian court for that offence whether he be a soldier, sailor, airman, Royal Marine, worker, Member of Parliament, or whatever he is. No subsequent enlistment will affect his liability to be tried by a civil court for a civil offence so described. That was the whole point I was putting. I thought it was a quite simple point. The Clause says that it will still remain a civil offence. All I am saying is that it will and I cannot see why anyone should doubt it.
An hon. Member opposite raises his hands as if this were a trifling matter, but this is one of the fundamentals of the Constitution. If we allow courts-martial to operate in this country in time of peace and to try offences which ought to be tried by the civil courts, we shall have abolished every security the citizen has. That is why Wolfe Tone was sent to the scaffold.
The issue is whether a modern Wolfe Tone can be tried in time of peace. It is no small issue and that is why this Committee should be jealous of any assertion in any Act which could tend to deny, cast doubts upon, or make doubtful the proposition that the civil courts are always supreme. I would not have developed the point in more than two sentences but for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston and the attitude of hon. and gallant Members opposite, who do not seem to realise its importance. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has often expressed the view that there are too many military men in this House. The time may come when there are so many that civilian Members would be under a difficulty in explaining points known for centuries to every school child, but as a civilian I am trying to make this point.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has referred to me. He suggested that subsection (2) casts doubt on whether the civilian law is supreme over military law.


How can he interpret the subsection in that way when it declares that
For the avoidance of doubt
the civilian law takes precedence over military law? The hon. Member has raised a completely unnecessary point.

Mr. Michael Stewart: If I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), it is that subsection (2) indicates that a man could still be proceeded against under the Clause even when he becomes subject to military law. My hon. Friend is anxious that that should be so, but what worries him is why it is necessary to say it specifically in the Clause and whether, by saying this in the subsection, doubt is cast on the generality of the principle. As my hon. Friend put it, why should anyone ever have doubted it? I submit that it might be doubted for the following reason.
The offence in question is the making of a false statement for the purpose of being attested. Suppose that a man comes forward and, for the purpose of being attested, makes a false statement, on the strength of which he is attested. Later, it is found that the statement is false and it is proposed to proceed against the man. He might try to argue, and at first sight it might seem plausible for him to say, "You accepted this statement and made me a soldier on the strength of it. Therefore, having made me a soldier, you cannot say, 'Now, we do not believe that statement,' because you have acted on it and you have attested me."

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend has put my argument with more clarity than I could, but he now comes to a point where I cannot agree. If, for instance, I make a false statement to obtain a pension, nobody can say, "We cannot prosecute you when we have paid you the pension."

Mr. Stewart: That is not the same thing. A man might make a false statement for the purpose of being attested. That, apparently, was not something which he wanted but is something from which the State gets an advantage. But the State would not get an advantage in paying my hon. Friend a pension; my hon. Friend would get the advantage.
Suppose that a man makes a false statement and, as a result, is attested. It may well be contended that the State has obtained an advantage from the false statement; it has got a new man in the Army and, therefore, it should not be allowed to turn round later and say, "We will prosecute you." I agree that that is not an argument which would hold water. I only submit that it is a plausible argument. It is an argument which might be advanced, and, therefore, it is wise to preserve that very superiority of the civilian law about which my hon. Friend is so concerned, to make it quite clear that that plausible argument does not hold water and that all that is done in subsection (2), as I understand it, is "for the avoidance of doubt." I hope that this may satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hale: Plausible—but there is no reason for doubt.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I should like, first, to apologise for the fact that in the service of the House in another direction I could not be in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) raised his difficulty. I would advise the Committee that the only reason for subsection (2) is to assert beyond possibility of doubt that very supremacy of the civil law that the hon. Member has raised.
The reason for the subsection is that Clause 61, later in the Bill, might conceivably leave room for argument that after a person had been attested and had become subject to military law, he had been taken out of the power of the civil law by some intervention of military law. The object of subsection (2) is simply to assert beyond doubt that that is not the fact. The true position is as the hon. Member for Oldham, West, in high and greedy support of the Constitution, asserts: that the civil law remains supreme.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The Committee will agree that this short debate on the Clause has shown how right my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was in raising this point. He has shown that the Clause is ambiguous. It is quite wrong that soldiers should have to take out construction summonses to ascertain the meaning of a Clause. I earnestly ask the Government to take back this


Clause and to take the advice of the learned Law Officers upon it, with a view to drafting it in a form that any soldier can understand.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is a very important matter. Although the Committee is grateful for the intervention of the Solicitor-General, I am sure that the scope of his answer is entirely unsatisfactory. I will indicate why his observations, although very fluent, were lacking in an important particular.
As I understand the Solicitor-General, his answer, in default of an answer from the Minister, was this. He says that the reason the Clause is included is to make it perfectly clear that the civil law shall prevail above the military law, whatever the circumstances. To clarify that position, the Solicitor-General called in aid Clause 61, which he gave as the reason for subsection (2) in this much earlier part of the Bill.
I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. Clause 19 obviously refers to a recruit, somebody who has not yet become part of the Army. To that extent, the Clause quite properly points out that as the man is only a recruit and still is, or ought to be, within the grip of the civil law, the mere fact that because of the attestation he may have become responsible to military law shall not exclude the supremacy of the civil law. That is one thing.
Clause 61 is an entirely different matter. The Solicitor-General has responsibly told the Committee something which I do not think is correct, and I want him to look at Clause 61. It relates to the making of a false statement on enlistment, but by that time the man has become part of the Army and is subject to military law. The Solicitor-General says that that will take the man out of the military law and bring him within the supremacy of the civil law.
I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman on this. I should like him to read the two Clauses very carefully. I agree that under Clause 19 a man is entitled to the protection and administration of the civil law, but under Clause 61 he is due to no such entitlement. All he would get at that stage, and all that he is entitled to, is to be dealt with under the military code and law. He is not entitled to be dealt with under the civil law.
I am subject to the matter being looked at again, but if I am right I say that this is a serious matter, and for two reasons. First, the Minister could not give any explanation at all. Secondly, when we got an explanation from a Law Officer, it was in my opinion not accurate. Thirdly, the matter is important because it concerns the question of whether the military law in all circumstances should be subject to the civil law. That matter ought to be very much more clear than it is at present.

6.0 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: May I, with very great respect, reinforce what the Solicitor-General has said? The difference between the two Clauses is this. Clause 19 (1) makes a false answer in the attestation paper a civil offence. Clause 61 makes exactly the same answer a military offence. This is, therefore, one of the many instances where a civil offence is also a military offence.
The situation is that if a recruit gives a false answer and gets off going into the Service, he obviously cannot be brought before any court-martial. It is for the civil authorities to make up their minds whether or not to prosecute. If, on the other hand, he has made a false answer to get into the Service and when he is in the Service it is found out, the situation is that he can be brought before a court-martial or can be prosecuted by the civil authorities. All the evidence which was brought before the Select Committee showed quite strongly that whether he shall be prosecuted before a court-martial or before a civil court is a matter for the civil authorities to decide.
However, before he can be brought before a civil court he must be handed over to the civil authorities by the military authorities. I do not intend to be in the least disrespectful to commanding officers or others concerned, but when it is found that the man has committed a military offence it may be very well said on the military side, "Why hand him over?" Clause 19 (2) then makes it clear that he still remains subject to civil law and must be handed over if required.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24.—(AIDING THE ENEMY.)

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I beg to move, in page 17, line 23, to leave out from "morale" to "or" in line 25.
I observe that those words do not appear in the old Section 4 (5) dealing with this matter. Section 4 (5) reads:
Having been made a prisoner of war, voluntarily serves with or voluntarily aids the enemy.
The word "voluntarily" has been omitted from the present Bill—no doubt for good reasons—but there have been added to it the words:
… or in any other manner whatsoever not authorised by international usage.
To what is that a reference? I imagine that the answer probably is that it is a reference to the various international conventions affecting prisoners of war. If that is the intention, there should be more guidance in the Bill itself to that which those who have drafted the Bill have in mind. Clause 24 (1, c) now says that:
Any person subject to military law who with intent to assist the enemy—
having been made a prisoner of war, serves with or aids the enemy in the prosecution of hostilities or of measures calculated to influence morale, or in any other manner whatsoever not authorised by international usage,
is liable to suffer death.
What is the manner in which he may be authorised by international usage to serve with or aid the enemy? Under the 1929 Prisoners of War Convention there are certain permitted matters that the Power holding the prisoner may call upon him to perform. I take it that that is what the Bill has in mind, but there is one very serious difficulty that the Army has to face if we let this Clause go through. In 1950, this country signed a new Prisoners of War Convention. For some reason or other that Convention has still not been ratified by the Government.
I take it, therefore, that if the intention of those words is to refer back to what a prisoner may properly be required to do under international law by the holding Power, the soldier or officer in question has to be referred, in the present state of affairs, to the 1929 Prisoners of War Convention. It seems to me a highly unsatisfactory state of things.
In the present Manual of Military Law there is, from what I can see in the copy supplied to me by the House of Commons Library, no indication of the duties which a prisoner of war may properly perform, when he is a prisoner of war, without running the risk of a charge which may result in his being sentenced to death. I really think that there are grave matters arising from the insertion of these words, for the first time, in the Army Act—matters about which we should have an assurance before we part with the Clause.
The position of a prisoner of war on trial for an offence in regard to this kind of thing has already, to some extent, been weakened by the omission of the word "voluntarily" in Clause 24 (1, c). The former words were:
Having been made a prisoner of war, voluntarily serves with or voluntarily aids the enemy.
It is quite true that, in the present draft, if the prisoner of war can prove coercion it is a sufficient answer to the charge, but where that much has been taken away from the soldier I feel that the addition of these words might confront the prisoner of war in the camp—and the prisoner of war when he returned from it—with a position of very great difficulty. These words are obscure and need definition. That definition is missing from the terms of the Clause.

Mr. Head: I entirely appreciate the hon. and learned Member's anxiety that the position of prisoners of war should be safeguarded. These words were inserted to make it clear that there is no offence if the work undertaken is work which is agreed upon by international usage. The intention, in fact, is the opposite to that which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.
The second point, which should, I think, reassure him is that this Clause 24 (1, c) is governed by the words
… with intent to assist the enemy—
That, really, is the governing phrase, and is the primary consideration in any offence with which a prisoner of war is charged.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Would the Secretary of State be good enough to indicate to what source the officer, or the commanding officer—or the men in the prisoner-of-war unit—is to look to see what he or the soldiers under him in a prisoner-of-war camp may do in accordance with


international usage? What is their source of authority? Is it, at the present time, the Prisoners of War Convention of 1929? Although that would appear to be the answer, I do invite an answer from the Secretary of State.
If it is the answer—although it does not directly arise on the Amendment—I do ask the Members on the Front Bench opposite to give urgent consideration to the fact that, though in this Bill we are referring soldiers and officers to the 1929 Convention, we have, since 1950, approved a new and more adequate Prisoners of War Convention which protects the prisoner far more than does the 1929 Convention. Is it not really time that we did something about ratifying the 1950 Convention?

Mr. Head: The question of the ratification of the Prisoners of War Convention is something which has to be done not solely by ourselves but by a great many other countries and that is something which we very much wish to see achieved. At present, the hon. and learned Member is right in saying that this refers to the 1929 Convention.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am sorry to return to this matter, but I regard it as important. With respect to the Secretary of State, it is not right to say that our hand is held up in this matter by reason of inaction by other Powers. I think that I am right in saying that most. European Powers have now ratified the 1950 Convention. Even the West German Government have passed a Measure approving of it, or something of that kind. The Soviet Union have ratified it. A substantial number of countries have ratified it and we are holding back. If we were to ratify, as it is our clear duty to do, we would give a lead to all the others. It is a remarkable thing that we have hesitated where on this matter even the West German Government, and, I think, the Russians, have moved.
The excuse given hitherto has been the lack of Parliamentary time, but this is the proper moment for the Secretary of State to raise this matter at the appropriate level, as he is introducing in the Bill new legislation referring to international usages and it is essential that the soldier should know where he stands.

Mr. Head: I appreciate the point which the hon. and learned Member raised and its application to the Clause.

If I may, I should like to look further into this question of the Conventions and inform the Committee or the House at a later date.

Mr. Wigg: There is a footnote to Section 4 of the existing Army Act, on page 194 of the Manual of Military Law, which is equivalent to the proposed Clause 24. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) for having placed the Amendment on the Notice Paper, and I hope that the Secretary of State will study the footnote.

Mr. Hale: I am sorry, but I did not hear that intervention on the part of my hon. Friend at all.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry that I cannot speak any louder. I have a cold, but I will do my best. I was asking the Secretary of State to look at the footnote to Section 4 of the present Army Act which is equivalent to Clause 24 of the Bill. The wording of footnote number 8 is a little worrying, and had I noticed it during the sittings of the Select Committee I might have taken a similar line to that which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South is now taking, but I am doing no more than to ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Hale: I entirely agree. The Secretary of State has made a very reasonable reply in the circumstances. After all, we are dealing with an offence in respect of which the death penalty can be imposed. This is not a matter about which I would wish to be fractious. I feel too deeply on the subject to give even the appearance of being fractious. The difficulty is whether, when the Secretary of State looks at the matter, there will be an opportunity on Report of raising it again if we leave it now. The difficulty about the Report stage is that sometimes there is no Report stage if no Amendments are carried.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: There is a Government Amendment.

Mr. Hale: If that is the case it deals with my point, and I need not dwell on it further.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: In view of the statement by the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, to leave out "death" and to insert "imprisonment."

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It may be agreeable and convenient for the Committee to discuss this Amendment together with the Amendment to Clause 25, page 17, line 41, to leave out "death" and to insert "imprisonment"; and the Amendment to Clause 31, page 20, line 34, to leave out "death" and to insert "imprisonment." They deal with the same subject.

Mr. Hughes: The effect of the Amendments would be to abolish the death penalty under military law. I hope that the doubts which have been expressed in our discussion on the previous Amendment will add point to my Amendments. I believe that the Minister should not only consider the point which has been discussed on the previous Amendment but should be prepared to take back the whole Clause. I know that it disturbs military minds to think that we should abolish the death penalty in the Army.

Mr. M. Follick: But they do not think.

Mr. Hughes: That is very unjust.
This is a point which the House of Commons considers only very rarely. This is the time when we should give some consideration to the offences which might be committed by a soldier, and the penalties which might be imposed on a soldier as on a civilian. We know that during the last eight years the House of Commons has frequently discussed whether the death penalty ought not to be abolished under civil law. We have had very vigorous debates, and the question has become a big controversial point in British public life.
I do not want to anticipate what may be said tomorrow, but if we are going to provide time to discussing whether, in civil life, a man should be executed for shooting a person, we should give some consideration to what might happen to a man in uniform.
A man's a man for a' that
whether he is in uniform or whether the offence is against a soldier or a policeman, and the same arguments should be carefully considered.
I do not want to enter into a lengthy argument on the subject, except to say that on the question of the penalty in civil law I am prepared to agree to the suspension of the death penalty for five years. Why should there not be a Royal Commission to inquire into the case of the soldier? The Clause provides five different reasons for which a soldier might be prosecuted and shot. A good many of these reasons are obscure.
I ask the Secretary of State whether he really thinks that these cases of people trying in all these devious ways to assist the enemy, which might give rise to very difficult circumstances, do not warrant examination by a Royal Commission, so that we may discuss, in relation to military law, the same matter as we have discussed in relation to civil law. I ask the Secretary of State if the number of cases which occurred in the last war were sufficient to justify the enumerating of these five different reasons why a soldier should be sentenced to the extreme penalty.
We know from our examination of the civil law that a case might be overwhelmingly against a prisoner and yet three or four years afterwards we might find that some irreparable injustice had been done.

Mr. Follick: What about the generals?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend can put that point of view.
However, if we seriously entertain the belief that public opinion has reached the stage where very large sections of enlightened people believe that society would not fall to pieces if we abolished the death penalty, I believe that there are soldiers and authorities on military law who would also say that the whole apparatus of military law and the whole system of military operations would not collapse if there were no death penalty for soldiers, and there were instead some penalty which could be altered if it were found that an injustice had been perpetrated.
The Secretary of State for War ought not merely to say, "All this has been done for centuries and centuries, and we shall not give any thought to it." It is the same sort of argument that Pontius Pilate would have used if anyone had suggested the abolition of the penalty of


crucifixion in the Roman legions. I urge the Secretary of State, whom we believe to be an enlightened Minister, to withdraw the provision or consider its suspension for five years so that those with great experience in military and legal matters can give the same attention to securing justice for soldiers as many people are giving to securing justice for civilians.

Mr. Hale: I consider this to be the most important Amendment that has been moved today and perhaps the most important that is likely to be moved. I hope we shall have some little time to consider it and that we shall consider it as fairly and as impartially as we can.
Everyone will appreciate that in time of war circumstances of very great difficulty occur. Everyone will appreciate that an act of treachery in time of war can endanger the lives of a great many people. Everyone will appreciate the necessity for stern discipline if one is to engage in war and a stern method of enforcing it. I have never tried to put the case in this matter unfairly. Everyone realises that there is very great difficulty.
On the other hand, everyone will realise that in time of war, when passions and fears are aroused, when unusual events are taking place and when troops are constantly on the move, there is always the very serious risk that a trial may be held in circumstances of great difficulty and, indeed, perfunctorily. There will be difficulties about the provision of evidence, and the defence may have difficulty in calling witnesses. In such circumstances, there may be considerable difficulty about holding a fair trial. This is essential and inherent in the very grave difficulties of such a situation.
It is right that we should look at the Clause. I want to say this as modestly as I can. It is not good enough to say to the House—the House is quite conscious of the fact—that this is an improvement and that the Bill generally improves things. The Committee is equally conscious of the fact that we do not get many opportunities of discussing these matters in detail, and we must take advantage of whatever opportunities we are offered. The House is quite conscious of the fact that a very able Committee, consisting of hon. Members from both sides, has been meeting and discussing these

matters for many months and has come in the main to agreed conclusions and has produced a very good bit of work. That does not, of course, answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and myself. This is the point at which we have to look at the work that has been done. We may very well say that, on the whole, we approve it, but there are some things of which we do not approve and some matters on which we feel that action should be taken.
I want to be quite fair. I am opposed to the death sentence in any circumstances. I think I always have been. I certainly have been for a great many years now, and I certainly have been since I had some experience of capital cases. Therefore, it may well be said that I am putting an argument as part of my own general opposition to capital punishment, and so I am. I do not for a moment want to be dishonest about it. If I were speaking tomorrow I should put the same point of view.
The House ought to look for a moment at the sort of offences which are being preserved as capital offences within the ambit of the Bill. For instance, Clause 24 (1) says:
Any person subject to military law who with intent to assist the enemy … abandons or delivers up any place or post which it is his duty to defend, or induces any person to abandon or deliver up any place or post which it is that person's duty to defend …
Let us be quite fair about it. It is always:
… with intent to assist the enemy …
That is the qualifying phrase which does not apply to people who desert their post far from the enemy or anything like that. I do not want to put this any higher than it should be, but it is as well that the House should understand the very great difficulty that there is.

Mr. John Mackie: On a point of order. Often this afternoon hon. Members have referred to "the House." Ought there not to be deference to the prestige of the Committee?

Mr. Hale: I am quite aware of the fact that we are in Committee, but in Committee we are reporting to the House, and as the House will determine the Bill on Third Reading I said that I should like the House to understand something, and


my method of letting the House understand something is to address the Committee now and put the facts before it and let them be reported in HANSARD, and then the House will consider them on the Report stage and later.
The Under-Secretary will recall a case which occurred in Austria a few months ago. The War Office was good enough to let me have a transcript of the court-martial, a courtesy which I appreciated. It was the case of a man who was put in charge of a post and was given orders to fire if people who could be regarded as enemy advanced. This was not in time of war in the ordinary sense of war; it was in the technical sense war in that we were occupying a country in respect of which no peace treaty had been signed. This may be a very grave technicality during a transition period. People came, and they came for no good purposes, and the man fired and killed. He was tried by court-martial and was convicted of murder. It was not in dispute that he had been given orders to fire, but it was said that, as a soldier, he ought to have known that such orders were illegal and should not have obeyed them.
I do not doubt that this is good law as the law stands today, and I am not arguing that as the law stands today that was incorrect. It is perfectly true that one must say to a soldier "If someone gives you grossly and obviously illegal orders, you must not obey them."

Mr. Follick: How is he to disobey them?

Mr. Hale: That is the point I am making. How is the soldier to disobey the orders? He stands to be tried by court-martial if he fails to obey his orders to defend a post, and he also stands to be tried by court-martial if he carries out such orders with violence which the court thinks is too great. These are matters of very grave difficulty.
I would ask the Committee to recall that there has been a very considerable advance in this matter. In the years between 1914 and 1918 the death sentence was applied for what was called cowardice. Many people suffering from neurasthenia were shot. The death sentence for cowardice existed throughout the last war, but I do not think it was ever carried out. It still existed in

the American Armed Forces throughout the war, and one sentence was carried out.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: The death penalty in our Armed Forces was not abolished, but no sentence was carried out.

Mr. Hale: That is what I said. I recall now that I was connected with a court-martial at which a man was charged with failing to carry out his duty in the presence of the enemy in that he failed to fire an anti-aircraft gun at an aircraft which was bombing a site. It was the first occasion that he had ever been on active service and the first occasion on which he had to fire a gun in anger. He was a volunteer and had never had an occupation likely to give him a sense of acute discipline or acute valour.
6.30 p.m.
These things do occur and we are not dealing with figments of the imagination, nor with unusual cases, nor with cases that I am dragging from obscure shelves. These are practical cases that are happening. An account was published three months ago of the one American soldier shot for cowardice in the war. This Clause does not deal with cowardice and I am glad to see that the next Clause does not ask for the death sentence for cowardice. It is well to remember this case which is relevant in the circumstances of a court-martial.
Eddie Slovak, an American airman, was shot for cowardice. At least he has a testamentary tribute in a volume describing his trial and life and a very moving document it is. It was said, of course, that he had the misfortune to be incapable of hate and did not hate even the Germans. The Committee will remember the years when hating the Germans was an obligatory duty and when we had not reached the stage when we were in favour of arming the Germans to partake in whatever military adventures might occur in the future. It was also said that he was essentially a very kindly fellow. His gaoler said he could not help liking him, because he was such a nice chap and was so very friendly. He must have been a good sort of chap to have created that impression knowing that he was to die. Dr. Johnson made some observations on that point and reached contrary conclusions in general.
The case of Eddie Slovak was the sort of case that could occur in military conditions. I do not want to use one word in the way of impugning the justice of military courts. I have had some experience of them. They try to act as fairly as they can and, given the time and civilian conditions, I think that a court-martial is generally a good tribunal. Some of the provisions for the protection of people tried by court-martial are far in advance of those in civilian courts and that includes the provision of evidence and the arrangement of counsel, and so on. If they are run properly—and I am not trying to make a fractious point in saying that they are not run properly—that is the case.
A point similar to that of the Eddie Slovak case was made by the author of "Ten Thousand Years in Sing Sing." It was said that one tries to find out why Jones hanged and Smith was reprieved. When one looks at their cases one cannot see why this man went to the scaffold for doing something that looks similar to that done by the man who was reprieved. The answer was that Jones did not have friends. There was no one to say a word for Jones, no one to say a word for Slovak. Slovak had a bad record. He had a history of petty crime.
That is the dilemma of the military courts. In time of war it is a very serious and difficult dilemma and I can think of no reason whatever for saying that in those circumstances one ought to impose an irrevocable sentence for a whole series of very vaguely set out offences which can be interpreted by one court as meaning one thing and by another court as meaning another thing.
I know how easy it is to say—I have heard it said recently—that there are always people concerned with murderers and not with the murdered. Here one has operations in which thousands of decent people are shot and thousands may lose their lives, because of a treacherous fellow who betrayed them. The answer to that is always simple and straightforward and I have never understood why it is not more clearly comprehended. When a bandit shoots a policeman, I can say that I did not do it, that I could not stop it and that there were no steps taken for which I bear any responsibility at all.
When we hanged Bentley, I hanged him and that is the case so far as I

am concerned. I am here to be concerned about matters for which I am responsible. I am concerned about the fact that when a soldier is shot, he is shot by us and we in this Committee are deciding and being called upon to decide whether he shall be shot in future in these circumstances. That is why I think that the issue is important.
As I have said before, and say again, because I want to be clear and fair, the controlling words are "with intent to assist the enemy." Subject to that control, we get a series of offences which are abandoning or delivering up any place, or post, or getting someone else to do it, or any acts calculated to imperil the operations of Her Majesty's Forces, or of any forces co-operating therewith, or any part of those forces. That is a very wide definition.
This means that even in time of war, if a man suddenly became anti-English and pro-German during the last war and with that anti-English feeling made some observations in a public house about the location of the fleet in the Clyde, he would be more liable to the death penalty than the person who did something about it. That is what it says. That would apply to a civilian who did it carelessly, recklessly, or foolishly.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Equally, it would apply to a soldier who did it carelessly. The vital words here are "with intent to assist the enemy." If a civilian, with intent to assist the enemy, tells him where these ships are at Scapa Flow, it is treason and I find it difficult, and my hon. Friend knows how strongly I feel with him on this general issue, to find that there is anything here which goes beyond the plain definition of treason.

Mr. Hale: I am in favour of abolishing the death sentence for treason, too. I will deal with my hon. and learned Friend's point in a moment. But who proves intent? How does one prove intent? How does one establish intent? My hon. and learned Friend has argued time after time on this issue that intent is something which is almost impossible to prove. It is a state of a man's mind.

Mr. Paget: It is there in crime.

Mr. Hale: It is part of every crime, but it is, of course, implied in every crime almost from the acts that are done.


But here one is applying a very specific test. Let me take my hon. and learned Friend's second charge. He says that these words come very near to treason:
Having been made a prisoner of war, serves with or aids the enemy in the prosecution of hostilities or of measures calculated to influence morale, or in any other manner whatsoever not authorised by international usage,

Mr. Paget: What about William Joyce?

Mr. Hale: What about P. G. Wodehouse? He was not a soldier, so he lives prosperously and happily. Is it my hon. and learned Friend's case that the soldier should be shot? The Minister has said he will look at the phrase:
or in any other manner whatsoever not authorised by international usage.
It would not be fair to criticise that at the moment. But what is helping the enemy? Did the German prisoners who worked on our farms in 1945 help the enemy?

Mr. Paget: International usage. The Hague Convention provides that other rank prisoners of war may be required by the captor to do work which is not immediate war work. That definition by international usage certainly included agriculture. The Bill excepts that sort of work which a captor may, by international usage, require the prisoner to do.

Mr. Hale: My hon. and learned Friend was not present when we were told that The Hague Convention had not been signed by this country at all—the 1950 Convention. The 1929 Convention might have been, but certainly it is not that—

Mr. Paget: The 1929 Convention is still intra vires.

Mr. Hale: There has been no Convention since 1950, which places the position in some difficulty. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not make these points too often. In a day or two we shall be having a discussion about the difficulties affecting Formosa and international law, and I gather that there is some difference of opinion between hon. and learned Friends of mine as to the interpretation of international law in those circumstances.
My hon. and learned Friend has contributed one interpretation of the law in the correspondence of "The Times" and

my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has contributed another interpretation. They are interpretations arrived at by both my hon. and learned Friends after having spent their lives in the service of the law and devoting themselves to a knowledge of the law and of its understanding. Here we are dealing with a wretched private soldier—

Mr. Paget: Why does my hon. Friend say that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and I disagreed? We did not. We came to exactly the same conclusion. I took the conclusion rather further than did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, but we came to the same conclusion.

Mr. Hale: I would advise my hon. and learned Friend to inquire of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church whether he thinks that—

Mr. Paget: And the Attorney-General came to the same conclusion.

Mr. Hale: —and whether the Attorney-General—I think it was the former Attorney-General—writing on the following day, wrote to correct him, or if he was in agreement with him.
I am not saying who is right or who is wrong—I do not know. All I am saying is that I suspect that a private soldier might not know either. How does a private soldier know what is authorised in international law? If I am wrong about the employment of prisoners as farm workers, why should not a private soldier be wrong about something else? I remember that I was one of those who put down a Motion against the Labour Government about the employment of prisoners as farm labourers as being contrary to international usage—

Mr. Paget: Not after the war.

Mr. Hale: But the war was still on, we had not signed a peace treaty. The war was still on and the law applied.

Mr. Paget: The point was that "hostilities had ceased." Those were the words used in The Hague Convention.

Mr. Hale: Let us take the next one:
harbours or protects an enemy not being a prisoner of war.
There the controlling words,
with intent to assist the enemy


cease to have any effect. It might be said that the harbouring of a member of the enemy forces must be with intent to assist the enemy, because a member of those forces is being assisted. I may not be right about that. I am frequently wrong about many of the things I say, but I think it could be said in a court of law with some hope of acceptance.
This is really rather surprising. In the last few years we have seen released from prison men who were responsible for the extermination of millions of people. We have seen persons released from prison who had taken an active, deliberate and constructive part in the murder of millions of people. I have never raised a word of protest against that. I was against the war crimes trials being held at all. I do not believe in improvising law to deal with a particular situation. I believe in having an international law which people can understand and which can be applied on all occasions.
At this moment we see people occupying high positions who have committed crimes infinitely more grave than those for which we are now providing for the occasional extermination of a private soldier. That is why I hope that in the matter of the death penalty my hon. Friends will take the opportunity to record their votes to show that we are not in favour of preserving the death sentence, so that the oft-repeated declarations of the Labour Government on the subject may be implemented.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Paget: As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is aware, I feel as he does, and very intensely indeed, about the question of the death penalty. I feel that to kill someone ceremonially in cold blood is wrong, and that one does not obtain good results by doing things which one knows to be wrong.
Having said that, may I also say that I do not think that we can have a special law for the Army which differs from the general law? In the Select Committee, we favoured greatly reducing the scope of this Clause; and I think that, with the possible exception of paragraph (e), we brought its application well within the definition of treason. If, with the intention of helping the enemy during war, one does any of the things enumerated in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), then I

think clearly that is treason, and a civilian would be equally liable. The Clause creates—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Then would my hon. and learned Friend care to explain why this Clause is in the Bill at all? If he is saying that this Clause does no more than repeat the ordinary law of treason and its penalty, then at best it is redundant, and when we—

Mr. Paget: I have grasped my hon. Friend's point, and that is the position I am coming to.
Treason, like murder, admits of only one punishment, which is death. Here we have introduced the alternative punishment of imprisonment, and so this Clause puts the soldier in a different position from the civilian. If a civilian did these things and were charged with treason, there could be only one sentence, which would be death. If it is done by a soldier under the stresses and difficulties of war, we provide in this Clause that the court may, in its discretion, impose a lesser penalty. That is why we have included this Clause.
I think that paragraph (e), which is the part of this Clause that I like the least leaves open to argument whether an intention to assist a particular enemy is an intention to assist the enemy. I remember one case—I think it was a fictional story—of a man on, I believe, an antiaircraft site who adopted a German and used him more or less as his batman and looked after him; and then helped him to get back to Germany. Whether that would be regarded as
with intent to assist the enemy
I do not know, and I think it unfortunate that that ambiguity is present.
I am not happy about paragraph (e) being in this Clause at all, because I am sure that it covers the sort of situation in which a court would exercise the discretion given to it to impose a sentence less than death. I do not think that any court would condemn a man to death because he had helped a particular enemy. Suppose the situation were that a man found himself in an outpost by himself; that he caught some particular enemy soldier; that that human contact created a human relationship; that the war was forgotten and he did not want to bring the enemy back to his lines;


that he helped the enemy to get back to his own lines. Of course, that is not a thing which a soldier should do. But if those were the circumstances it is equally clear that no court which has a discretion—and this Clause gives a discretion—would impose the death penalty.
What one really has to consider is whether it is better to have a Clause which, over a range of offences, gives a court the discretion not to resort to the death penalty, or whether it is better to leave the whole question as one of treason, in which case the court has no discretion and has to award the death penalty. Therefore, even upon this subject, about which I feel so very strongly, I advise the Committee to accept the Clause.

Mr. John McKay: I feel that I should attempt to make my position as clear to myself as possible, and to the extent that I am successful I may make it clear to other people. When we begin to try to work out the kind of policy which we should pursue in matters of this character we sometimes have to go a long way back. I can understand the arguments put forward by those of my hon. Friends who are pacifists. I quite appreciate that they are against the death penalty in any circumstances. In that respect they differ from most people.
My difficulty arises over the question of discipline. Although I recognise that in the Army some kind of discipline has to be imposed, and that certain deterrents have to be created to help to keep the men upon the track which most people believe to be the right one, I cannot bring myself to understand the matter sufficiently to make me feel very strongly about why it is argued that the death penalty should not apply either in civil life or in the Army.
I feel that I have to go further afield to understand my own position. I am not quite clear—[Laughter.] Someone may laugh if a man confesses that he is not quite clear and is not sufficiently instilled with enthusiasm about his argument. It may be said that to that extent he is showing weakness. That does not follow. It may be that the man is trying to solve a problem to his own satisfaction but cannot do so at the moment.
I cannot understand the psychology of arguing against the death penalty both in civilian and army life while advocating

killing under certain definite circumstances. We believe in training men to kill. We believe in conscripting men and fitting them to kill. That is our general attitude. Therefore, we, as a country—including many of the people who argue against the death penalty in civilian life and even in Army life—still believe that we should have an Army to defend ourselves and should train men to kill.
Not only that; we have a preference for training young men to do it: we believe that the tender youth of the country should be trained to kill. When I weigh up the position I begin to wonder where the logic is. If, as a nation, we believe in training men to kill, how can we logically argue that, in certain circumstances and in extreme conditions, we should not impose the highest possible penalty for certain actions?
7.0 p.m.
The question is whether the death penalty is a deterrent. Is it of such a character as to help to strengthen the morale of certain people under certain circumstances so that they will not assist the enemy? Let us consider the position of an army in battle. We must realise that hundreds of thousands of our people, mainly young men, have been trained, encouraged, and put there for one purpose—to "get on with the job and get as many Germans as you can," as somebody once said. That phrase might not be strictly applicable, but the fact is that we have an Army and we have trained it to kill in battle. Thousands of our people are ready to carry out that work while, at the same time, thousands of others are ready to try to kill us.
During an operation of war it may happen that some individual may try to assist the enemy. As I understand it, the Clause means in general that, when judgment is passed, it is passed on the basis that the whole of the situation has been weighed up by the military authorities, and that a man has committed an offence with intent and with understanding, when his mind was in proper balance, and when he knew what he had done. Therefore, we say that, in these special circumstances of assisting the enemy, a man ought to suffer the greatest penalty.
Some people say that this issue has a parallel in the question of the death penalty in civil life, but to me there is no


parallel at all. In the case of the death penalty in civil life, we are usually dealing with an individual who has murdered another individual. On the field of battle, after we have trained hundreds of thousands of men to do certain actions—in our belief, to defend our country and in the interests of our country, and even when we go so far as to think it is also in the interests of the world, though it is a question whether we could ever prove it or not—the position is quite different. On the field of battle, it is not merely a question of an individual doing something which will harm another individual.
It might be that a man might assist the enemy to such an extent that, instead of one man being killed, the action might lead to hundreds of his own friends being killed. Therefore, to my mind, if we are satisfied—and that is the whole point—that an individual on the field of battle, with his mind in normal balance, for some ulterior reason which we cannot fathom, has deliberately betrayed his own friends and caused hundreds of them to die because of that betrayal, we should say that that situation has no analogy with the position of a murderer in civil life. It is a much more important and much bigger thing.
While I have every sympathy with the views of my hon. Friends, and do not speak with any great enthusiasm in this matter, I should say that, for the present, we should retain the death penalty. It is a grave and difficult question, and one cannot he enthusiastic about it, because, whichever side we take it is—like German re-armament—still a problem and a gamble. We are not quite sure, and, therefore, we cannot be quite as enthusiastic as some people are in various other matters.
After weighing up all the arguments, I have come to the conclusion, though without any enthusiasm, that when an individual has gone so far wrong and, as far as can be judged by a fair trial, is still apparently in a normal, balanced frame of mind, and we know perfectly well that such a betrayal has taken place, there is a stronger argument for the death penalty in those circumstances than there is in civil life. I leave the position there, not because I am confident that my attitude is correct, but because, after hearing all the great legal stars in this assembly, I think that this is an occasion when an

ordinary layman might usefully express his opinion.

Mr. S. Silverman: Most of us would concede that if a case can be made out for the Clause unamended, it is the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) has just made. That is the case for retaining the death penalty in those circumstances. As he rightly says, people might reluctantly come to the conclusion that the death penalty should be thus retained; they might look at the matter in that way and come to that conclusion, and no one could gravely quarrel with them if they did. That is a very different thing, and much easier to follow than the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
I understood my hon. and learned Friend's argument to be that this is a mitigation of the law—that, without this Clause, soldiers, like civilians convicted of treason, must be sentenced to death, whereas the Clause amends the law by discriminating in favour of soldiers. If my hon. and learned Friend is right, and if we do not pass the Amendment, the position in future will be that any civilian who commits treason will be executed in any event so far as the sentence of the court is concerned, whatever the extenuating circumstances; but the court will be allowed to take the extenuating circumstances into account, not in any charge of treason, but in any charge of treason committed by a soldier. If my hon. and learned Friend is right, I do not think that that is a change in the law which I would approve.

Mr. Hale: When a soldier has been convicted by court-martial and sentenced to imprisonment, he will still be liable to be tried in a civil court for treason and sentenced to death.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend may or may not be right about that; I do not know. I will not be drawn into the obvious complications of that proposition, though I should think that he is probably right. Whether he is right or wrong is not material to my present argument. I am content to accept the interpretation of the Clause as it stands which my hon. and learned Friend gave in his extremely lucid speech, and to say that that kind of alteration in the law would seem to me to be one which the Committee would be well advised not to accept.

Mr. Paget: In a general way, I agree with my hon. Friend, but he will realise that the Clause, in the overwhelming number of cases, covers people who are prisoners of war. Prisoners of war, in the overwhelming number of cases, are soldiers. I say that the Clause covers offences by prisoners of war who go over to the other side, and I think that, whatever the theoretical position may be, the advantage of giving the court a discretion as to the penalty in that type of treason is worth while.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. and learned Friend may think so; I remain unconvinced. Looking at paragraphs (a) to (e) of the Clause, I would not concede that the number of persons affected by it would be predominantly prisoners of war.

Mr. Paget: As to 99 per cent.

Mr. Silverman: So my hon. and learned Friend says; I beg leave to differ.
I think that, if my hon. and learned Friend looks at the paragraphs separately, he will find several in which a man who was a prisoner of war could not commit it at all. In a number of other cases, it might be committed by a man on active service still fighting, equally with a prisoner of war, but, in any case, I cannot see what possible difference it makes. I can very readily see a case—and I would enthusiastically support it—for saying that in treason, as in several other cases, the court should have a discretion, even if we retain the death penalty, as to whether in all the circumstances the death penalty should be inflicted or not. What I cannot understand is the suggestion that we should alter the law so as to give it a discretion of that kind only in the case of soldiers. Why should we?

Mr. Paget: Is not half a loaf better than no loaf at all?

Mr. Silverman: It is, but it all depends on who has the half. I am considering all those civilians who, under this Clause, would not benefit.
I will leave that point now—I think that I have said all I want to say about it—and will come to another point.
My hon. and learned Friend says—and I would agree with him—that if we are to retain the death penalty at all and wish to limit the circumstances in which it can

be inflicted, this Clause is an improvement in the law in that it introduces a particular exception. My hon. and learned Friend will say that the prosecution, upon whom the onus always lies, would, under this Clause and in every case, have to prove an intent to assist the enemy. That may, he says, be a difficult onus to discharge, and is, therefore, a safeguard.
I think that that is verbally so, but not so in substance. It is quite true that the prosecution has to try to prove intent to assist the enemy, but my hon. and learned Friend and I both know perfectly well that certain presumptions of law come into operation here. One of them is that one cannot get inside a man's mind in order to determine under a microscope what his intent was or was not. One can only infer his intent from what he does. Therefore, there is a presumption of law that every man is presumed to intend the natural and ordinary consequences of the act which he actually performs.
If my hon. and learned Friend will apply that maxim—which I am sure he accepts as being good law—to the offences specified in this Clause, he will see how very tenuous and precarious are the safeguards and modifications on which he here relies. Let us look at the first offence, which is as follows:
Any person … who … abandons or delivers up any place or post which it is his duty to defend …
The prosecution would say to such a person, "That is where you were posted, and you were told to hold it. You abandoned the post. You must have known when you abandoned the post that it was an object of the enemy's attack. You must have known when you abandoned the post that the enemy would take it over, and that was the very thing that you were ordered not to do. There fore, since your abandonment of the post—as a necessary and certain consequence—involved yielding up the post to the enemy, there is a presumption of law that that is what you intended to do."

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend's argument is entirely misconceived. A charge cannot lie against a man for abandoning a post; it can only lie against the superior officer who is charged with defending it.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but I do not know that I was basing my argument on any other supposition. Supposing that, in those circumstances, the officer is charged—

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend, I thought, had in mind a sentry who is charged with defending a post, which is altogether quite different.

Mr. Silverman: If, for the sake of brevity, I did not state the whole of the argument and, therefore, confused anybody, I apologise. What I was intending to say was that if a person is charged with that offence, be he the officer in command or a sentry in a forward look-out—by whom the offence could equally well be committed—he would be presumed by law to have intended the natural and the probable consequences of his abandonment of the post.
It is true that he would be able to advance another explanation. He could rebut the presumption of law, but that would transfer the onus from the prosecution to the defence, and would make the difficulty of proving intent an obstacle to the defence instead of to the prosecution. I would say that in the vast majority of cases of soldiers charged with this offence, they would be just as likely to be convicted of the full offence under this Clause as they would be under the old law.
My hon. and learned Friend said with regard to paragraph (e) that his argument would not fit in at all. That paragraph deals with
Any person subject to military law who with intent to assist the enemy harbours or protects an enemy not being a prisoner of war.
Does my hon. and learned Friend say that that is treason? Of course it is not treason, and yet, under this Clause, a person could, by a court-martial, be sentenced to death.

Mr. Paget: Not only is it treason, but it is one of the main definitions of treason—anyone who gives aid or succour to the Queen's enemies.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. and learned Friend has forgotten more law than I ever knew, but if he tells me that if an enemy ship is shipwrecked on the coast of Cornwall and a fisherman takes one of its crew into his cottage and succours him overnight, that fisherman would be guilty

of treason, then I say that we should alter our law of treason.

Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend should look at decisions, of which the most famous took place at the Bloody Assizes, when a great number of people were convicted for just that act.

Mr. Silverman: I have yet to learn that there is any twentieth century lawyer who regards what took place at the Bloody Assizes as being good law, and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would be the first to say so if he were not committed to his own argument. It seems to me that though the un-amended Clause might conceivably be defended on the broad commonsense lines of my hon. and learned Friend's argument—although I do not share his opinion, I understand how he arrives at it, and recognise it as a tenable point of view which I would reject—I am afraid that he is a victim of his own intellectual subtlety in this matter and that he would be very much—

Mr. Hale: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for refreshing his memory about the classic case at the Bloody Assizes, in which succour was given. It was the case of Lady Alice Lisle, and because of that conviction Judge Jeffreys' memory has been held up to odium through the centuries. It has been held against him as being the worst case of its kind.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I was about to say that I think that my hon. and learned Friend has been the victim of his own very considerable intellectual subtlety and that, on reflection, he would be better advised in this case to stick to the argument which he will be defending tomorrow.

Mr. Paget: I think it may be of some importance that the proposition that a man is held in law to intend the natural and probable consequences of his action is applicable to a criminal offence requiring a specific intention. The criminal law is entirely otherwise where a particular intent is required by the statute. That must be proved specifically, and it has been decided over and over again that it cannot merely be deduced because it is a probable consequence of what a man did.

Mr. Silverman: If a man goes into a shop and pretends to the shopkeeper that his name is Jones, a customer well known to him, when, in fact, his name is Smith and someone of whom the shopkeeper has never heard, and he obtains credit from him, the facts would be sufficient to enable the prosecution to say, unless the prisoner could explain them away, that intent to defraud had been proved.

Mr. Paget: Certainly.

Mr. Silverman: That is all that I was saying, and it is equally applicable to every single one of the subsections of the Clause.

Mr. Wigg: I hope that the Committee, when it comes to make its decision, will remember that it has not merely been engaged in enjoying the pleasure of legal niceties. We are engaged in laying down a code of discipline which governs men's lives at the very moment when they are most difficult to govern, when they are overridden by fear and when, in fact, it is absolutely vital for the success of the operation in which they are engaged that they should subordinate their will and their fears to the will of the commander who is directing the operation.
During the whole of the proceedings in the two and half years that the Select Committee sat, that was constantly in my mind, and I may have bored my colleagues by repeatedly going back to it, and saying, "Whatever we do we must not make up our minds merely on the niceties of legal judgment." This is a code of discipline. No one likes the death penalty—I certainly do not. I do not want to transgress the rules of order, but I would say that with my hon. Friends I shall vote against the death penalty tomorrow night.
This is something quite different. It a young man—or a body of troops—allows himself to be influenced by fear, that may cost the lives not of two or three people but of thousands. Indeed, it may jeopardise the future of millions. Therefore, I think that it is absolutely vital on this issue, while desiring above all to be just, that we should remember the consequences if authority is not given the power that the situation may demand. We must face that fairly and squarely.
In my submission, we should be failing in our duty if we were overborne by the

compelling legal arguments of the very able debaters who sit below the Gangway. I believe that if they had sat with us on the Select Committee they would have come to the same conclusion as we have done, and I hope that they will accept the honest and sincere advice given by other hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and agree to the Clause as it stands, without calling a Division.

The Reverend Llywelyn Williams: In subsection (1) we are dealing with what could be described, possibly correctly, as moral dereliction of duty. That, of course, is a very serious offence and should be seriously dealt with, although I personally would never find myself able to support the death penalty for moral dereliction of duty, even in this context.
I am rather concerned with one facet in which we are dealing with people who commit these offences not deliberately with intent, but for other reasons. I wonder whether this category would include the intellectual, if that is the right word to use, inability to accept a certain military situation. If it is not proved that a man acted with intent to assist the enemy, he is still liable to conviction if he is responsible for or guilty of committing any of the acts specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1).
I wonder if we can have a full interpretation of the reason why a person can be found guilty of these five derelictions of duty. For instance, everyone who has read the history of battles will know that thousands of people have been sent to an untimely death, not because of any moral dereliction of duty on the part of their superior officers, but because of the intellectual inability of the officers, in a given situation, rightly to assess its dangers and its consequences.
A simple illustration which would surely be relevant is this. A person takes for granted that the weather will be propitious for a certain military operation and finds out that in the event the weather is not propitious. I suggest that that is not a far-fetched argument. Cannot we have a clearer definition of the type of dereliction of duty which the Minister has in mind.

Mr. James Simmons: I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that we have passed Clause 2. Under


Clause 2 we are taking into the Armed Forces men whose minimum age is 17 years and six months, or, in certain circumstances, 17 years. It is a very different thing to talk about the death penalty to a seasoned soldier and to talk about the death penalty to a lad of 18. It is possible for a lad of 18 to be on active service and under fire. That is a point worthy of consideration before we finally decide whether or not to support this Amendment, which asks us to refrain from imposing the death penalty in such cases as this.
For instance, a lad of 18 may be on a lonely post under heavy shell fire. He may retreat from the lonely post to a shell hole to get cover, because his nerves have given way. He will have abandoned his post. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said that only officers could abandon posts. That statement is beyond my comprehension. In battle, when an officer is killed, the senior N.C.O. takes charge. If all the N.C.Os are killed, the oldest soldier takes charge, and if there is only one man there, he, of course, is the only one to decide whether or not the post is to be abandoned.
Then there is the position of a man who, having been made a prisoner of war, furnishes the enemy with arms and ammunition. The man who is made a prisoner may be carrying arms and ammunition and be relieved of them by the enemy. He may have no choice in the matter. Yet, under the Clause, he can be shot for cowardice or desertion, or whatever it is. Then there is the paragraph which states:
harbours or protects an enemy not being a prisoner of war.
I think that is undermining the spirit of humanity. A soldier on the battlefield may find a very severely wounded enemy on the point of death. He may protect him and apply a tourniquet, or field dressing, or look after him in some way. The whole Clause is ambiguous; there are too many loopholes. The Clause uses the words "with intent." Who is to decide whether the soldier had intent to assist an enemy or not? Who could know the state of mind of the man? Who could know what a young man of 18, under shell fire, would do when his nerves gave way?
7.30 p.m.
We should be on the safest bet if we said we would have no death penalty at all. I see no argument for saying that we should oppose it in civilian affairs but support it in military affairs. Human life is human life whether those concerned are in uniform or civilian clothes. The taking of human life in cold blood is something not to be supported by any man or woman of humane feelings. This means taking the life of a young soldier—probably only 18—in cold blood for what he has done, perhaps involuntarily, because his nerves gave way under stress of war and battle. I support the Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): I cannot help feeling that the discussion has tended once or twice to drift rather far from the Bill. Some of the speeches have, to a large extent, anticipated tomorrow's debate. We have to remember that military law has to keep fairly closely in line with civil law and that is true of this Clause.
The Amendment does not seem to take account of the fact that under civil law treason attracts the penalty of death without any alternative. Nor does it seem to take account of the fact that under Clauses 32 and 70 cases of failure to suppress mutiny or civil offences attract the death penalty. From that point of view the Amendment is not very logical. This Bill does not seek to impose the death penalty where it did not exist before; on the contrary, it tends to restrict the number of offences attracting it and tends to impose a number of safeguards which did not exist before.
In the first place, in every case the court has discretion to award a lesser penalty. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that he did not altogether like paragraph (e), under which the death penalty could be imposed for harbouring or protecting an enemy and various cases have been suggested. I should have thought that where that was done out of possibly mistaken humanitarian motives it would be very unlikely that any court would impose the penalty. I have known of cases where it was found more convenient both to the soldier making the capture and the prisoner captured to treat the prisoner on a friendly basis for a time because he made himself more useful than if he were


handed over and put into a prisoner-of-war camp. That helped both parties.
I do not think anyone suggests that the death penalty would be imposed in cases of that kind or in cases where one felt sorry for a prisoner of war who was in a bad way. But a case might arise of someone who knowingly and deliberately harboured an enemy spy, an enemy agent, who intended to blow up a bridge or do damage of one kind or another. In that case, I think there would be a very good case for asking for the death penalty.

Mr. Paget: There is a difficulty here. The man who harbours an enemy for humanitarian reasons is doing so with the intention of assisting that enemy, but what the Clause is intended to mean is that there should be an intention, not to assist that particular enemy, but an intention to assist the enemy's cause in general. I wonder whether, before we reach the next stage, it would be possible to look at that and see whether some form of words could be found which would make it clear that under paragraph (e) an intent to help that particular chap is not good enough but there must be an intention to help the enemy's cause in general? I am sure that is the intention and we might try to find some words for it.

Mr. Maclean: I would not venture to argue with such a distinguished lawyer as the hon. and learned Member, but I should have thought at first sight that
with intent to assist the enemy
makes that clear. I know that my right hon. Friend would be quite ready to have another look at the wording to see whether he can find a formula which would dispel any doubt on that point.

Mr. Paget: I am much obliged.

Mr. Maclean: This Bill tends to restrict the number of offences which attract the death penalty. We are trying to do everything in our power to see that it does not impose the penalty where it is not absolutely necessary that it should be imposed. Already, my right hon. Friend has agreed to look into points raised by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) on the interpretation of international law. It is always extremely difficult to interpret international law, even for international lawyers. It is not our intention to ask

the private soldier to show a greater knowledge of international law than the lawyers themselves possess.
On the whole, it should be quite clear from the Bill that what might be termed treacherous offences arising out of cowardice do not render a soldier who commits them liable to the death penalty. That is one of the most important features of the Bill.
A further safeguard is that the decision of a court has to be unanimous under Clause 96, by which the death penalty is imposed. That, again, makes it impossible for the death sentence to be imposed lightly. Hon. Members opposite have tended rather to give the impression that this could be a summary procedure in the heat of battle. That is certainly not the case.
It has also been suggested that the wording of the Bill is vague, and on two points we have agreed to look at it again; but the fact remains that the opening words of the Clause are not at all vague. They make it quite clear that the prosecution must prove intent to assist the enemy, and the onus of proving that rests with the prosecution and not with the prisoner.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) spoke of wretched boys losing their nerve and running away and he suggested that they would be liable to the death penalty for doing that. That is quite clearly not the case, and it certainly is not what the Select Committee had in mind. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) mentioned the case of Private Slovak. I am not familiar with all the details of that case, but my understanding is that under this Bill he would not have been executed. He does not, therefore, enter into our discussion.

Mr. Hale: I thought I had made that clear. It was a case of cowardice and I said that the Clause would not apply, and that Clause 26, which deals with cowardice, does not impose the death penalty. What I did say of Private Slovak and what would apply was that the wretched man had no friends. The trouble sometimes in these cases is that at the front there are soldiers with no friends, and things can happen that would not happen on mature reflection.

Mr. Maclean: The feeling of the Select Committee was in one way extremely well summed up by the very


sincere speech of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), which, I think, everybody felt was a valuable contribution to our discussion.
I do not think that anybody likes the death penalty and nobody likes war very much, certainly nobody who has taken part in one. What was felt by the Select Committee was that it was necessary—and this has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—to produce rules of discipline to deal with the case of deliberate traitors who do not commit whatever action they commit out of cowardice or from a love of humanity in general, but who do it to procure the destruction of as many of their comrades as possible.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I appeal to my hon. Friends who introduced the Amendment to consider whether there is any need to force this issue to a Division. I do not propose to comment on the legal aspects of the Clause. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has dealt adequately with them, and I do not think there is much difference on the legal aspects between the viewpoint of my hon. Friends below the Gangway and the views put forward by my hon. and learned Friend.
The real point at issue is the question of the death penalty. My hon. Friends have put forward powerful arguments, based on humanitarian grounds, against the imposition of the death penalty. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) would advocate, as, I think, he suggested, that the death penalty should not be applied for any offence whatever.
7.45 p.m.
We cannot deal with this branch of the law by a side door. The law for civilians with regard to treachery still applies the death penalty. It is now suggested that we should set an example by agreeing to the deletion of that part of the Clause which applies the death penalty for acts of treachery committed by those who are subject to military law.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), when he referred to the fishermen who succoured the shipwrecked enemy, was not applying that as an argument against the Clause, for, as

he knows, the Clause refers only to persons who are subject to military law.

Mr. Hale: My right hon. and learned Friend is saying that we must not introduce the abolition of the death penalty by a side door by making special provisions for soldiers which do not apply to civilians. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton urged that specific argument as a reason for applauding this Measure and said that we have made special provision for soldiers that does not apply to civilians, because we have given to courts-martial the alternative of imposing the death penalty or imprisonment, and this does not apply to civilians.

Mr. Henderson: I am not suggesting that I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton.
What I am saying is that Parliament must face up to the question of treachery, whether committed by civilians or by those who are subject to military law, and must decide whether or not in any circumstances the death penalty is to be imposed. What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton rightly pointed out was that, in the case of a person who is subject to military law, there is the alternative of imprisonment as against the imposition of the death penalty.
I am saying that if we advocate the removal of the death penalty in any circumstances, either as an alternative, as under the Bill, or as it is under the law relating to civilians, Parliament must face up to that and we must not seek to do it in this way.

Mr. S. Silverman: My right hon. and learned Friend misses the point. I used my argument about the fishermen because I had put it to my hon. and learned Friend that the offence specified in subsection (1, e) was not treason, and my hon. and learned Friend said that it was. I therefore put the fishermen point to him, not for the purpose of saying whether the Bill applied, but for the purpose of testing whether that kind of thing was treason. But whether it is treason or not, what the Bill does, if my hon. and learned Friend is right, is to make the death penalty inevitable in the case of a fisherman and discretionary in the case of a soldier. I say that that is wrong.

Mr. Henderson: Whatever may be the position with regard to the civilian, the Clause deals with the person who is subject to military law; and the Amendment seeks to delete the death penalty provision in the Clause and not to alter the law with regard to the commission of an act of treason by a civilian.
We may on human grounds deprecate the imposition of the death penalty. We also deprecate death that results from warlike operation. If we want to avoid the necessity for taking life, even under the rule of law as contained in a Measure such as we are dealing with today, the only sure way is to abolish war. If we in this Committee were asked to vote, by raising our hands, for the abolition of war, there is not an hon. Member who would not raise his or her hand. But we have to deal with the realities of life. We have not got to the point where war can be abolished. We have to cater for what might happen in the event of war, and as we have our Armed Forces we have to have an Army. If there is an

Army there has to be a code of discipline, otherwise the Army will be something of a rabble.

That is the whole basis of the Bill which we are considering tonight, and all I am saying to my hon. Friends is that, with all respect, there is very little which divides hon. Members on this side of the Committee on this problem of capital punishment, certainly in relation to the question which will be debated tomorrow. But tonight we have to look at this question in relation to the maintenance of the discipline of the Armed Forces. It was because of that that those of us who served on the Select Committee felt that there was no alternative but to accept the provisions of Clause 24. That is why I would ask my hon. Friends not to force their Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That "death" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 10.

Division No. 32.]
AYES
7.52 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hollis, M. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Holt, A. F.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Deedes, W. F.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Arbuthnot, John
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Assheton, Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Donner, Sir P. W.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Kurd, A. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Drewe, Sir C.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Awbery, S. S.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Duthie, W. S.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Barlow, Sir John
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Jennings, Sir Roland


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Errington, Sir Eric
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fell, A.
Kaberry, D.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Finlay, Graeme
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bing, G. H. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, H. W.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lambton, Viscount


Bishop, F. P.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Leather, E. H. C.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)



Follick, M.



Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bowden, H. W.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lindsay, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Braine, B. R.
Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Godber, J. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gower, H. R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bullard, D. G.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Burden, F. F. A.
Grimond, J.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Carr, Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McLeavy, F.


Colegate, Sir W. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Heath, Edward
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.




Marples, A. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Maude, Angus
Profumo, J. D.
Tilney, John


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Rayner, Brig. R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Mellor, Sir John
Roper, Sir Harold
Turner-Samuels, M.


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Turton, R. H.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Vosper, D. F.


Nicholls, Harmar
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wade, D. W.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Sharpies, Maj. R. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Shepherd, William
Wall, Major Patrick


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Soames, Capt. C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Oakshott, H. D.
Speir, R. M.
Wigg, George


O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Page, R. G.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Paget, R. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wills, G.


Perkins, Sir Robert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Storey, S.
Woollam, John Victor


Peyton, J. W. W.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Wyatt, W. L.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold



Pitt, Miss E. M.
Teeling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Powell, J. Enoch
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.




NOES


Carmichael, J.
Rankin, John



Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fernyhough, E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Mr. Emrys Hughes and


Foot, M. M.
Stress, Dr. Barnett
Mr. Leslie Hale.


Paton, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)



Question agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN, being of opinion that the principle of the Clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the Amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45 (Debate on Clause standing part), That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29.—(OFFENCES BY OR IN RELATION TO SENTRIES, ETC.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 19, line 42, to leave out "two years" and insert "one year."

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take with this Amendment those to Clauses 31 to 43, standing in the hon. Member's name.

Mr. Hughes: This question is very simple and need not involve a great deal of elaborate legal discussion. It is whether or not the maximum penalty of imprisonment should be two years or one. I submit that one year is more humane, and equally effective as a deterrent, than two years. The maximum sentences laid down are sentences for

what might in many cases be trivial offences for which a soldier should not be liable to the exceptionally long period of imprisonment of two years. A maximum of one year would safeguard discipline and serve as a deterrent. I should be interested to hear the legal arguments that can be advanced against me in this case.

Mr. F. Maclean: The hon. Member said that his argument was very simple and very short. I hope that mine will be equally simple and short, but rather more effective. The reason why we need a maximum punishment of two years—and I repeat that it is a maximum—is that, under all the Clauses in question, the offences dealt with are capable of very wide variations of heinousness. Indeed, they vary with the circumstances in which the offences are committed. We have to retain a maximum of two years so as to be able to distinguish between less important offences—which they may also be—and offences committed in circumstances which might imperil the life or limb of large numbers of people, or which may be very much to the detriment of the British Army.
That is why we cannot accept this Amendment, and why the present maximum was accepted by the Select Committee after a great deal of careful thought.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 to 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63.—(OFFENCES AGAINST CIVILIAN POPULATION.)

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I beg to move, in page 33, line 14, after "shall" to insert:
be tried by court-martial and.

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if the two Amendments to this Clause, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), are taken together.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I hope that the reasons I shall set forth will so commend themselves to the Committee as to persuade it to accept the Amendment.
The provision of the Army Act corresponding to Clause 63 of the Bill is contained in Section 6 (3, d) which I should like to read. It says:
Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences; that is to say
(d) Does violence to any person bringing provisions or supplies to the forces, whether Her Majesty's forces or forces co-operating therewith; or commits any offence against the property or person of any inhabitant or resident in the country in which he is serving … shall, on conviction by court martial, be liable, if an officer, to be cashiered, ought to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
Clause 63 contains a very important and significant alteration. If my Amendment is accepted the Clause would read:
Any person subject to military law who, in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom, commits any offence against a person or property of any member of the civil population shall be tried by court-martial and on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or any less punishment provided by this Act.
The purpose of the Amendment is to deal with a type of case of which there have been more than one or two examples in recent years. It is the type of case where a British soldier serving, for example, in Hong Kong or Singapore, is found guilty of an offence in the civil court and is condemned, not only to a term of imprisonment, but also to a number of strokes of the cane.
It is monstrous and indefensible that we should tolerate a situation in which a British soldier who, committing a particular offence in this country, is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, but, doing it in Hong Kong or Singapore and found guilty there, is also flogged. I cannot believe that a code of law which in this country we have found barbarous and unacceptable should, by reason of this unamended Clause, be continued in relation to British troops serving in British territory overseas.
I have endeavoured, without success, to obtain particulars from the War Office of the number of cases in the last year or two in which these soldiers have been sentenced by a British magistrate to be flogged as well as imprisoned for offences committed in Hong Kong or Singapore. I was referred by the War Office to the Colonial Secretary. This is apparently not a matter for which the War Office considers itself responsible. I still await information from the Colonial Secretary which would indicate the magnitude of the problem and the extent to which British troops are still being flogged in Hong Kong and Singapore for offences which they may have committed in those places and for which they find themselves condemned by a civil court.
This matter has been raised in the House of Commons on one or two occasions and some small driblet of information has been vouchsafed by the Colonial Secretary to one or two hon. Members who have interested themselves in it. It so happens that not so very long ago the secretary of the Blackpool branch of the Royal Pioneer Corps Association protested to the Prime Minister about the flogging of British Service men in Hong Kong and Singapore. The Prime Minister apparently transferred the protest to the Colonial Office.
I should like to read, for the information of the Committee, an extract from the letter which was sent to the branch secretary from the Colonial Office on 19th August, 1954. It is as follows:
I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lennox-Boyd to refer to yours of the 21st July to Sir Winston Churchill concerning the award of corporal punishment to British Service men in Hong Kong and Singapore.
I am to say that the Service men in question were not, and could not be, whipped by


order of Her Majesty's Government or the Colonial Government concerned. They received corporal punishment in accordance with sentences passed by the Civil Courts in pursuance of the Criminal Law in force in those territories. As you are no doubt aware, the Army Act does not affect the jurisdiction of Colonial Courts; and Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, which abolished whipping in this country does not apply to the Colonies.
I am to add that it is the policy of the Secretary of State, as it was of his predecessor, to encourage the abolition of corporal punishment in those colonial territories where it is permissible. Considerable progress has been made in this direction over the past few years, but local circumstances in many territories make it difficult for this form of punishment to be dispensed with at present.
I ask the Committee to agree to assist the Colonial Office and the Government in their apparent intention to abolish corporal punishment in the Colonies.
Let us make a start at least in relation to British Service men who, in the course of their duties, find themselves out in the places which I have mentioned and who get themselves into trouble. If the Amendment is accepted, it will mean that if an offence is committed against a member of the civil population the offender, who may be a National Service man, a Regular soldier or a sailor, will be tried by court-martial and subjected to whatever term of imprisonment the nature of the offence may justify. But the one thing which the court-martial will not be able to do will be to flog the soldier who has been guilty of this offence. That is why I attach some importance to the Amendment, which, I hope, the Government will be disposed to accept.
8.15 p.m.
I think it is common ground that corporal punishment has been abandoned in this country and is not likely to be reinstituted here. Surely it is also common ground that there does not seem to be any logical justification for a National Service man serving overseas finding himself subject to a barbarous code in Hong Kong and Singapore which we in this country have long rejected. If the Amendment is accepted, it will represent a step forward in the policy which the Government agree ought to be followed. I hope that by accepting the Amendment we shall put a stop to the deplorable practice of subjecting Service men overseas to flogging a s well as sentences of imprisonment.

Mr. F. Maclean: We appreciate the purpose which underlies the Amendment, but I am advised that it would not have the effect which the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) desires. The trouble is that it is doubtful whether an Amendment to the Army Act would affect the jurisdiction of any civil court, let alone of a civil court overseas. I appreciate the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point of view and I should be only too glad to discuss it with him and look into the possibilities of getting round the difficulty in some other way, but it is a matter which will have to be settled by mutual agreement between the Governments concerned—Her Majesty's Government and the other colonial or foreign Government.
The effect of the Amendment would be that irrespective of any trial by civil court the offender would also have to be tried by court-martial. The Amendment would not prevent his being tried by a civil court but it would mean that if he were tried by a civil court he would have to be tried by a court-martial as well. That is why we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart: I was happy to hear the Minister say that he will be glad to discuss this matter with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), who has raised a point of some seriousness. It is all the more serious when we have compulsory National Service, because it means that by the National Service Acts we impose more liabilities on men than we sometimes realise.
We not only impose the military service but oblige them to travel overseas, possibly into territories where the penal code is in the opinion of some of us, more barbarous, or as some would say more rigorous, than ours. At any rate, it produces the result that a British soldier who has not voluntarily taken up the Army as a career but who has been brought into it by National Service Acts can be sent overseas and if he is convicted for certain types of offences can be flogged, although that penalty could not be inflicted in this country.
Until there were one or two cases recently, I am not sure that the legal position was generally realised. It is a serious position and we ought to look into it. In view of what the Minister has said about it, I must confess that it is extremely hard


to devise a workable legal remedy for that position. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton will agree with that. Let us suppose that we could do what I take it the Amendment is intended to do. I wonder what view would be taken by the people of Australia or New Zealand if we said that if we had soldiers there they would be exempt from the jurisdiction of their civil courts. I think it would be very difficult to persuade them to agree to that.
I take it that what we really want to do is to say that if our soldiers are in a country where the penal code is acceptable to us, we are satisfied that our soldiers should come under the civil law there, but where the penal code is unsatisfactory to us, our soldiers ought not to come under it. I believe that that is what my hon. and gallant Friend is saying, but I am sure he will agree that there would be great difficulty in getting that into a statute.
May not the remedy be for the Colonial Secretary to urge very strongly upon colonial Governments the opinion held in this country? While it is always, no doubt, part of his duty to see that colonial penal codes are humane, appropriate and reasonable, it becomes all the more his duty when under the working of the National Service Acts and the Army Act our soldiers can become subject to those codes.
I am now raising a point which is more appropriately addressed to the Secretary of State for War than to the Under-Secretary. I hope that the Secretary of State will give an undertaking to take the point up with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I ask him, as the senior Minister, to do that. It is a point worth looking at, but I confess I see no way of doing it other than by means of the influence which the Colonial Secretary can bring to bear upon colonial legislatures. I hope the Government will be prepared to look at the matter in that light.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: We have had an offer from the Under-Secretary, who said that he was willing to enter into discussions with me on the subject. We have also, I take it, an undertaking from the Secretary of State for War that he will enter into consultation with the Secretary

of State for the Colonies. If that is a correct interpretation—there being no dissent on those two propositions, I presume that they are accepted—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64.—(SCANDALOUS CONDUCT OF OFFICER.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. A. Henderson: Perhaps I might begin what I have to say by reading to the Committee the contents of the Clause:
Every officer subject to military law who behaves in a scandalous manner, unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, shall, on conviction by court-martial, be cashiered.
My hon. Friends and I do not raise the point because we take the view that officers should not set an example. Officers are the leaders in the Armed Forces, not only by reason of the fact that they have had special training but because it is up to them to exercise qualities of leadership over the men who are entrusted to their command.
However, we do not consider that this provision fits into the present-day conception of individual relations. I hesitate to pick out any particular part of it. I notice that the term "a gentleman" is used. The term is used in a good many connections, but it is very difficult to know what one would say if asked to define it.
This reminds me of a story—I believe it to be a true one—of a very distinguished professor, whose name is well known, certainly to my hon. Friends, who in the First World War refused to take a commission and rose only to the rank of sergeant. He was wounded and eventually found himself in the military hospital at Oxford. There he was visited by a very distinguished bishop, Dr. Gore, Bishop of Oxford, who went to him in the most friendly fashion and stayed talking to him for half an hour, calling him by his Christian name. After the bishop had left, the nurse in charge of the distinguished professor said to him "Why did you not tell me that you were a gentleman?" In using the term "a gentleman" we must be careful to define exactly what we mean.
My hon. Friends and I are not opposed to the requirement that there shall be the highest standards of personal, social, and military conduct on the part of officers, but we do not believe that there should be a statutory provision making it a court-martial offence if an officer commits some kind of social solecism. The volume containing the Report of the Select Committee contains a memorandum by the Departmental Committee which cites two types of offence which it is considered by the Committee could be the cause of action under this Clause. The first one is where an officer, while present at a dinner party, behaves in a scandalous manner; for example, publicly making insulting remarks to a woman guest. The second is where an officer carries on an indecent correspondence with civilians.
I do not want to embark upon the legal aspects of that second example, but I should have thought that it was a civil offence to send indecent matter through the post. We take the view that an officer, or for that matter any other rank in the Armed Forces, should only be court-martialled for offences other than offences against the civil law. In those cases, in normal circumstances, he would be liable to be tried before a civil court.
If it is an offence that cannot be tried before a civil court, possibly not a civil offence, we propose that he should be dealt with under the provisions of Clause 69, which, as the Committee will know, provides:
Any person subject to military law who is guilty of any act, conduct or neglect to the prejudice of good order and military discipline shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or any less punishment provided by this Act.
We therefore suggest that there shall be no offence of this kind of which an officer can be considered to be guilty, unless it is an offence against the civil law of the land, or an offence which can be covered by the provisions of Clause 69.
8.30 p.m.
We invited the Departmental Committee to give us examples of this conduct by an officer which could not be dealt with either under the civil law or under Clause 69. It can be ascertained from a perusal of Memorandum 10, which was put in by the Departmental Committee, that the Committee frankly stated it had been unable to trace any ca se of misconduct by an officer which could not

have been dealt with either under the civil law or under the provisions of what is now to be found in Clause 69. We propose that in those circumstances Clause 64 should be deleted, and that we should seek to rest upon the provisions either of the civil law or the provisions of Clause 69.
There is one further point. It might be said that there might be a case of serious misconduct on the part of an officer and that there might be some doubt whether it could be dealt with under the Clause dealing with conduct to the prejudice of military discipline. As the Secretary of State knows from his own experience, and as I certainly know from my own as Secretary of State in a Service Department, there are administrative regulations which permit the Army Council to call upon an officer to retire from the Services under the provisions of Queen's Regulations and the Pay Warrant in circumstances where the officer has behaved in such a way as to make it undesirable for him to remain an officer in Her Majesty's Service.
Therefore, under any one of those three headings, it seems to us that the requirement that an officer should live up to a reasonable standard of conduct can be dealt with, and it is not necessary that Clause 64 should be retained.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I should like to support my right hon. and learned Friend's objections to the retention of this somewhat obsolete provision. It is really disappointing to find it still there. My first objection to it is that the single penalty of cashiering is a vicious provision. My more serious objection to it is that it provides for the authorities a dragnet in which to catch the officer they cannot catch on a proper criminal charge for an offence under the other provisions of the Bill, or an offence under Clause 69, or under the provisions of the ordinary civil law.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I think I am right in assuming that the hon. and learned Member was, during the course of the war, in the Judge Advocate General's Department. Can he say from his own experience that there was any case where this was used as a dragnet for that sort of purpose?

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I did not wish my own experience to be called in aid, but,


like the learned Solicitor-General, I had duties in connection with this at the end of the war. My recollection is that this was used in connection with dishonoured cheques and entertaining ladies in the mess. As to the former there seem to be other provisions in the Act then available. As to the latter, Section 40 of the Army Act was available if offences of that kind were pursued. We now have brought up to date the specific infringements which are dealt with in the various Sections of the Act and we still have Clause 69. Of course, the words,
unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman
have for some reason become part of the mystique of the Regular Army. I have never understood why it should be necessary to add the words, "and gentleman." If an officer behaves in a scandalous manner unbecoming the character of an officer, I should have thought was quite enough.
It seems to me to be rather insulting to say that scandalous conduct unbecoming the character of an officer is not enough to constitute an offence but that it must be scandalous conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman. That seems to me to be an invidious distinction, and to suggest that in certain circumstances an officer may not necessarily be a gentleman; so that from the point of view of the mystique of the Army I should have thought that this Clause did that mystique no good.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he looks at the dictionary definition of the word "gentleman." There a gentleman is described as one who is authorised to bear arms.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: That is very interesting, but it does not add anything. If the definition of "gentleman" in Clause 64 is now to mean anyone capable of bearing arms, it adds nothing whatsoever to the Clause, except perhaps a faint touch of snobbery in the context of the Clause, and in contrast with what is provided for for other ranks, most of whom, in these days, may also be entitled to be called gentlemen.
I believe, therefore, that this does not add anything, except a dragnet of which a possibly incompetent staff officer might

choose to take advantage. Drawing upon what recollections I have of Army experiences, I cannot believe that the retention of this Clause serves a useful purpose, though we on this side of the Committee are as anxious as hon. Gentlemen opposite to maintain discipline in the Army, especially among officers.

Mr. Wigg: When this matter was considered by the Select Committee the argument I used with my colleagues was, could they find any examples at all where officers charged under Section 16 could not have been charged under Section 40? That seems to me to be the gist of the whole argument. If the Government did as we ask and cut out Clause 64, would they find themselves hamstrung if a case arose which required disciplinary action? The truth is that they would not. They have ample powers under Section 40.
To keep the record straight, may I read paragraph 3 of Annex 10 on page 340 of the Select Committee's Report of October, 1953. The Departmental Committee said this:
At the request of the Committee an examination has been made of offences which would have been charged under Section 16 in order to isolate offences which could not have been charged under Section 40 or Section 41 or some other section of the Army Act. It has not been possible to find any such cases …
and, of course, it is not possible to find such cases.
I wish to make it quite clear that I am not, by implication or in any other way, challenging the good faith and competence or the integrity of my colleagues on the Select Committee. In my submission, the reason for the presence of this Clause is because it provides—if I may say so—a very useful bolt-hole. If an officer is charged with conduct of a scandalous kind unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, he shall, on conviction by court-martial, be cashiered. The fundamental difference between hon. Members opposite and myself is that they are gentlemen and I am not. That is why the Prime Minister hurled his quite irrelevant insult at me the other night. By implication, anybody who happens to be born of humble circumstances and has accepted the "Queen's shilling" cannot possibly be a gentleman.

The Solicitor-General: He might be a martyr.

Mr. Wigg: I do not see the relevancy of that interruption.
I would point out that the penalty which will be imposed by hon. Members opposite under the Clause will not hurt me. If they are cashiered they will be barred from their clubs. That is the great penalty of being cashiered, II one is a member of a club in Pall Mall. The only club of which I am a member is the Dudley Labour Club, which is affiliated to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. It is a working man's club, and if I am cashiered I shall be a martyr. I should be given a stained glass window.
I am against this distinction. I want one code of conduct right the way through, from the ranks up to field marshal. If a field marshal offends he should not be defended by the Prime Minister, but should bear the consequences of his action. That is all that I have ever asked for. The retention of this Clause is a piece of out-of-date snobbery which has no meaning. The Departmental Committee was forced to admit that it served no useful purpose. I challenge any hon. Member opposite—as the Departmental Committee was challenged—to quote one case that could be dealt with under this Clause and which could not be dealt with under any other part of the Army Act.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: If the hon. Member had read on he would have read examples which the Departmental Committee said it thought could be dealt with only in that way.

Mr. Wigg: They were social offences. The case was mentioned of the conduct of an officer while present at a dinner party, and an officer who carried on indecent correspondence. That matter was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). I am sorry that I did not read on, but I had no intention of suppressing any evidence. My right hon. and learned Friend dealt with these cases. They could have been dealt with under Clause 69.

Mr. Hutchison: The Departmental Committee thought not.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, the Committee did not press the point very much. It is clear that those cases could have been dealt with, if not under Clause 69, then under the civil law.
But even if we suppose that the hon. Member is right and that Clause 64 is required, it would be grossly improper to retain the powers only to cashier an officer when, in other parts of the Bill, the penalty of cashiering has been replaced by a period of two years' imprisonment. If the hon. Member is right he must see the implication of his argument. This seems to me to be the only blot which besmirches two and a half years of useful work. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will agree that we are right about this and delete the Clause from the Bill.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I hope that circumstances will never arise when the Dudley Labour Club has to erect a stained glass window—not least because such a window is not a very elegant facility in a club at any time. After two years of working alongside me—I might almost say together with me—the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) knows what my views are. I cannot accept for my hon. Friends the attitude of mind which the hon. Member said inspired them to take the view they did.
8.45 p.m.
The one point that has not been brought out very clearly in the discussion is that we decided to retain. I think rightly, the procedure that an officer in Her Majesty's Army receives Her Majesty's commission. Whereas I am entirely in agreement with the adoption of a fair and just code for all ranks of the Services, I think that a commission carries with it an additional responsibility. I believe quite sincerely that it is in the interests of discipline and of the Army itself that the higher people go the greater are their responsibilities, and that, if they offend against those responsibilities, the more severe their punishment should be.
I believe that the disgrace, which has nothing to do with belonging to a club, is a social disgrace in the eyes of the community. The hon. Gentleman was inclined to make fun of it, but, quite honestly, if he had been cashiered, he would not have been so happy as he made out. I do not think that he would have received the approbation of any part of the community if he had been cashiered for neglecting a fundamental trust placed in him by the highest authority.
Therefore, I believe that the principle underlying the Clause is a good one. I


should certainly be against a heavier punishment being meted out to those in subordinate positions. That would be very wrong, and throughout our deliberations we have been quite clear about that. I believe that it is a right social principle, in the correct use of that word, that those in high places should, if they make mistakes, be more heavily punished because they are in those places. They should be in a position to understand what their responsibilities are and to carry them out accordingly. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend, for that very simple, single reason, will retain the Clause.

Mr. Bing: The poet Yeats, in defining the term "gentleman," described a gentleman as one who never uses that term. If that is so, we are putting the officers who sit on courts-martial in a very difficult position in enacting this Clause. Indeed, it seems to me that we are enacting a social anachronism which was perceived long ago.
I think I am right in saying that it was the playwright Pinero who, in one of his plays, introduced a butler who was, no doubt, brought up on the principles advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he said to his employer, "Sir, there is an officer and a gentleman waiting for you downstairs." The gentleman in the case replied, "Oh, in that case, show them both up," which shows that, even at the beginning of this century, there was not this unanimity of view as to the essential unity of the officer and the gentleman.
If one looks round this side of the Committee to see whom one should discipline first, one's mind turns almost automatically to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). These two, I think I am right in saying are the most distinguished former non-commissioned officers on this side of the Committee. Why should they be placed in a special category, and, therefore have to be tried under the old Section 40? [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite interrupt to say that any section will do, but let us consider the matter seriously.
This penalty is either too much or too little. It is designed as an escape for officers, because the only penalty can be

cashiering. If the officer has done something really serious, it is only too easy to say, "Well, after all, he was a very good fellow: we all knew him, and we do not want to expose him to all the penalties of imprisonment. Let us try him under this Section and then he will not be in any real trouble."
There was an intervention a short while ago—which I hope he will develop later—by the Solicitor-General, in which he said "Not only officers, but martyrs." Historically, the martyrs in the Roman army were not drawn from the officer class. As the Solicitor-General would say, they were not quite out of the top drawer, but they have gradually been accepted in the calendars of most Churches in the ranks of the martyrs despite the fact that they did not obtain officer status.
The object of the Clause is to avoid making people martyrs, even if they want to be, and in order to be able to say, in the case of a particular officer, "We will try him under this Section. The worst that can happen is that he will be turned out of the Army, and he will not be subject to, and the court cannot inflict, the other penalties." Why, at the same time, should he not be subject to the same sort of penalties as the ordinary soldier?
If two people commit an offence together, a senior N.C.O. and an officer, and it is conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, why should the officer be tried under a Section which prohibits him from being sent to prison, while the N.C.O. must be tried under a Section which gives the court an opportunity of sentencing him to a term of imprisonment? That is the ridiculous and nonsensical effect of this Clause.
The only reason why it is retained—as I think the deliberations of the Select Committee show—is a desire to maintain a certain sort of snobbery. It is very unfortunate that we should have that sort of thing in the Army today. We want to get away from such ideas. The Clause is really for dealing with dud cheques. It is an indirect form of enforcing the payment of tradesmen's bills, of using the fact that a man is an officer to enforce somehow his civil obligations to tradesmen and the like.
It seems to us on this side of the Committee that an officer should in no wise be in a better position than a civilian in


regard to his civil liabilities. He should be able to be pursued in the ordinary courts, and if, in fact, his conduct is such and his personal position is such as to warrant it, it is open to the Army Council to terminate his career as an officer. It can always do that; the Bill gives it power to do that. This Clause seems to us, and seemed at the time, to be one designed to perpetuate a state of affairs which, in fact, has long since ceased to exist.
There is no conceivable reason why somebody who has served for 20 years in the Army, making his way up through the various ranks, should suddenly, when he becomes an officer, be liable to penalties to which he was not liable in his previous ranks in the Army. The only justification for the Clause would be if the Army were in two watertight compartments, and people started either as officers or in the ranks. If that were so, then there would be an argument for a different method of approach. Otherwise, it seems to us on this side of the Committee that there is no justification for such a distinction, and we hope that the Committee will reverse the decision of the Select Committee—taken, incidentally, by only one vote—and will remove this Clause from the Bill.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: It is difficult for me, as one who has been in the Army for 34 years, not to feel emotion about this matter. I trust that my emotion will not appear in my speech, because I feel very strongly indeed on the matter. I hope that hon. Members opposite who also feel strongly about such things as teetotalism and capital punishment, emotionally as well as factually, will respect my views.
For many years in the Array I, as an officer, suffered from the attempts of Socialist Members in this House and others outside it to do everything in their power to reduce the authority of officers. I am now suggesting that of all the inverted snobberies of which I have ever heard, this one—of the Socialist Party now championing the case of an officer, and trying to reduce the disgrace of his sentence, when he commits crimes which are not, and ought not to be, tolerated by an officer in the British Army—is the most object humbug I have ever listened to.
There is one golden rule, and it is this: that one's subordinates in the Army

demand a higher standard of conduct from their officers than they would ever tolerate for themselves. That is a very good rule indeed. I am delighted that it is so. It is complete rubbish to say that there are other sanctions contained in the Bill which could be used against officers. There are certain actions of officers which cannot be punished, either by civil law or by military law. Admittedly, as already has been said, they can be deprived of their commissions by the Army Council. That means absolutely nothing.
Traditionally, and for years and years this country has understood the word "cashiered" to mean the greatest disgrace to which an officer can be subjected. If there are, as I know there are, many classes of crimes which officers commit, either socially or against men in their own regiments, for which there is no framework in the law which enables them to be sent to prison, to which of course they should be sent, then for goodness sake let us see that they are cashiered, because that will be a lasting disgrace to them. If they come before any Labour Party or Conservative Party committee for candidature for Parliament and they have been cashiered, what hope have they got? It serves them right.
With all sincerity, after 34 years in the Army, I implore my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to retain the Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not wish for a moment to make a martyr of the learned Solicitor-General, but I think that I must ask him to look at the Clause again in the light of two other Clauses, namely, Clauses 69 and 71. I hope that, first, we will all agree that there is no need for an emotional atmosphere in this matter. This is either a matter of common sense, or it is nothing at all. Why the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) should have got himself into the obviously emotional state that he was in, is very difficult to understand.

Mr. Ian Harvey: rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Let the hon. Member try to contain himself for a moment.
Nobody on this side of the Committee or anywhere else with any sense is


desirous of getting rid of a penalty which is properly there. The issue here is not whether this is a proper penalty, but whether, in fact, the Clause is superfluous. As a matter of good draftsmanship and safe legislation, it seems to me, beyond dispute, that if the Clause is redundant it ought not to be there. That is the issue.
What does the Clause do? It applies itself, or purports to apply itself, to the scandalous conduct of an officer, and it is right that there should be provisions, prohibition and sanctions in cases where there is scandalous conduct by an officer. But in this respect I want the Solicitor-General to march along with me, and follow the language not only of the Clause but of the provisions which are contained in the two other Clauses to which I have already referred, namely, Clauses 64 and 69—I should have said Clause 69 and 71.

9.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: rose—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: "Clause 64" was a lapsus linguaœ, but that does not absolve the Solicitor-General from applying his mind to the two Clauses that really matter here—Clauses 69 and 71. Let us look at Clause 64. That Clause purports to say that where an officer is subject to military law, he shall, if he is found to have behaved
in a scandalous manner, unbecoming the character of an officer and gentleman, … on conviction by court-martial be cashiered.
In the light of those words, I should like the Solicitor-General to apply his mind to Clause 69. Why should not identically the same thing be done under Clause 69 as is purported to be done under Clause 64? Of course, it may be said that Clause 69 is a Clause of wider scope because, in addition to using the word "cashiering," it also comprehends imprisonment. But the mere fact that it is a wider Clause does not in any way derrogate from the point that it renders Clause 64 entirely superfluous. It is quite clear that under Clause 69 we can do precisely, without any derrogation in any sense whatever, what it is stated we can do under Clause 64.
It may be argued, "Yes, but Clause 69 does not imply the word cashiering"—I should like to have the attention of the Solicitor-General. I should like a little animation of mind on this as well as

animation of conversation. If the Solicitor-General looks at Clause 71 he will find a sentence which is clearly described as cashiering and, as Clause 69 brings in every other sentence that is spread over the whole of the Bill, it is clear that that is included in Clause 69.
To summarise the position, I ask the Solicitor-General, why should we put on the Statute Book a Clause which is superfluous in the light of another Clause being in the Bill which includes that, although it certainly contains other things, and which, in fact, brings in the very sentence of cashiering which is contained in Clause 71? The Committee is entitled to an explanation from the Solicitor-General. If Clause 69 is sufficiently comprehensive, sufficiently effectual, to bring in the same sentence as is in Clause 64, then Clause 64 ought to be expunged from the Bill.

Mr. Head: I am sorry, as many hon. Members are, that in a Bill which, in the Select Committee which devised it, met almost universal agreement, we should arrive at a Clause which causes such disagreement. As I see it, the real heart of the matter is the question of the status of the officer. In the final analysis, the responsibility of an officer and the object of all armed forces is battle, and the final job of an officer is to have the status and position of leading, encouraging and inspiring men when they are likely to be killed. When people are likely to be killed, they do not feel at their best—at least, I do not know of anybody who has done. Respect for officers, and good officers, is an absolute fundamental in the duty of the Services, which is to fight. I do not think anybody would disagree with that.
How does an officer acquire the position in which his men will follow him? Hon. Members may say that many N.C.O.s have acquired just as good a position, and I would not disagree; but primarily the object of an officer is to give that lead. Armies have tried, like the Russian Army, to have complete equality and at one time the Russian Army officers slept in the barrack rooms. The experiment failed and the officers went back to very ornate uniforms and a far bigger discrepancy in pay than exists in the British Army. Why I make this discursion is that the whole basis is respect for the status of the officer.
To acquire that status, an officer must have the respect of his men. I do not claim that every officer has that respect; officers vary—some are bad and some are good. What everybody knows is that if an officer lacks respect of a certain kind, he becomes disqualified from holding the Queen's commission, which should be a special trust in his conduct and value.
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) asked why this should be expected of officers and why the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) should be exempted. The whole point is that an N.C.O., whether junior or senior, dislikes nothing more than having a "dud" officer whom he does not respect. It makes the life of an N.C.O. much worse. The object, then is that this code and standard of an officer should be retained.
Hon. Members can argue about this legally and can make many points, but I say that the status of an officer is intangible and to some extent the reason for the retention of the Clause is also intangible. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) asked why cases could not be dealt under other Clauses, under a civil code or under the old Section 40. The case for the retention of the Clause is that perhaps, in the case of an assault or indecency, the charge could be made under a separate and different Clause—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: rose—

Mr. Head: Let me develop my argument. The hon. and learned Member was not very generous to me. It is difficult to break off, and he has interrupted me in the middle of what I was saying.
The object of the Clause is to isolate and show up quite clearly those offences in officers which are considered scandalous in the sense that they disqualify an officer from carrying out his duty and that they reduce his status. If an officer commits a scandalous act which is well known within the unit and which may come within the scope of the civil court, and he is charged with indecency or assault, it is far better to retain, both as an educative value and as a principle, a Clause which says, "If you fall below the standard which we expect of officers, you will be tried under this Clause and you will be cashiered." To get rid of the

Clause and to leave that out is to suggest that we are tolerating a different standard today.
There has been a lot of talk about the meaning of the word "gentleman." There was something in what the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch said. It is not something that I particularly want to discuss, but I would say this. The word "gentleman," in my opinion, has nothing to do with the class term. In my opinion, it describes a man with certain qualities which are very difficult for anyone to outline. I think the finest gentleman I ever met was a lighthouse keeper. I believe that there are certain standards of conduct which come under humanity, generosity of character, understanding, braveness, a certain degree of humility, honesty, and so forth, which qualify a man to be called a gentleman. Whether he was born in the slums of Glasgow or in Blenheim Palace, his chances of achieving that are about equal.
I am trying to develop the theme that in the Services we are still trying—and I may say that both the Army Council and the Air Council were unanimous about this—to retain a status of conduct and behaviour which will ensure respect from the men. In any fighting force, that respect from the men is a vital factor when the task for which the force is designed, which is to fight, has to be undertaken. There is nothing more miserable for any soldier than to fight under a bad officer.
Here this Clause remains, and so long as it remains it points out that every officer in all three of our Services, as long as he holds the Queen's commission, is expected to maintain a standard of conduct which is worthy of a man's service for the Queen.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Secretary of State for War has said a number of things with which we on this side of the Committee and, indeed, people everywhere, would agree, but they do not seem to have much relevance to his defence of the retention of this Clause in the Bill. Let me mention two essential points about this Clause that were made clear early in the debate. First, there has not been any successful attempt to show that there are offences which would fall under this Clause which could not, in fact, be dealt with under Clauses 69 or 70. The two examples to which some reference has


been made, such as the carrying on of indecent correspondence or insulting behaviour in public to a lady, could have been dealt with one under Clause 70 and the other under Clause 69.
What we have here is that an officer should be required not only to observe the civil law and to refrain, like other soldiers, from conduct which is to the prejudice of good order and military discipline and with that exceptional strictness which, I agree, is required from officers, but to conform to some kind of code signified by the word "gentleman," which is unknown to the civil law and is not connected with good order and military discipline. It is that that we criticise. Why should a purely social requirement that is not connected with good order and military discipline—that is to say, not connected with soldierly or officer-like qualities—be put upon an officer?
We have to remember that not only does it place this requirement on the officer, but it could—and this is a more serious objection to the Clause—become what has been described as a bolt hole. It is possible—I do not say that this has often happened—that an offence which, in the interests of justice ought to be dealt with under Clauses 69 and 70 with their heavier penalties—these would be imposed if the offence were committed by the other ranks—would be dealt with under this Clause in the case of an officer and the lighter penalties would be imposed if he were found guilty. Although, in time past, cashiering was possibly one of the heaviest dooms that could fall on a man in that position, that is not so today with the changing structure of society.
9.15 p.m.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) that it might well be that someone who was cashiered would find it difficult to persuade either political party to make him a candidate for election to this House. I am not sure how far that would be regarded as a penalty from that man's point of view. If he had more knowledge of this House he might feel that he was well out of it. I am not at all sure that if such a man—who, by definition, is not a man of high moral standards—instead of seeking entry to

this House were to seek some more lucrative occupation in commerce or industry, he would find that having been cashiered would stand so much in his way. There has, in recent times, been a strong tendency to assume that if a man has been in any way penalised by the State that is the mere bureaucracy of the State—"This is the sort of independent-minded fellow we want in commerce and industry." This penalty of cashiering does not carry with it the injury it used to carry.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Do I understand that the hon. Member is saying that our responsible leaders in industry and commerce today are prepared to accept on their boards, and in positions of authority, people who have been cashiered?

Mr. Stewart: I would advise the hon. Member to turn to some of the old files of newspapers where he will see the sort of people who have got into responsible positions of that sort.
When the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) suggested that it was important that if an officer commits an offence he should be more severely dealt with and punished than is a man, we do not dissent from that proposition. What we are dissenting from is that, quite apart from military and civil offences, there should be this third, intangible code which, by definition, has nothing to do with being either a good citizen or a good soldier but which is created for the officer. We dissent from the proposition that, at the same time, there should be the possibility of his being punished not more heavily but more lightly than is the soldier for a comparable offence.
In the light of this objection I think this Clause could only be retained if it could be proved that it was necessary on what we must regard as social or mystical grounds. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing began his speech in a most moving manner and I thought that he was going to put forward a most impressive case. He began by asking us on this side to respect the sincerity of his feelings, but the next minute he was describing as humbug the feelings on this side. If he does not credit others with sincerity he cannot expect to be credited with sincerity himself, and most of us completely discredited his subsequent utterances in that respect.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: That goes for the hon. Member's side also.

Mr. Stewart: I do not ask the hon. and gallant Member to respect my sincerity. Whether or not he did would leave me unmoved. I say that he cannot expect credit for his sincerity if he does not accord it to others.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Mr. Stewart: This mystical argument is linked up with the word "gentleman." Among the many definitions of the word one was taken up, wrongly I think, by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing. I understand that in that connection to bear arms is not meant in the sense of a soldier bearing arms but in the sense of carrying a coat of arms. If what we are really being asked to say is that if an offence unbecoming to the character of an officer is committed by someone who has a coat of arms it should be made a special offence, we are being asked to perpetuate a piece of nonsense.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I did not mean that at all. He seeks to put words into my mouth. I did not mean to bear arms in that sense. I meant privates, lance-corporals, corporals, lance-sergeants, sergeants—all the way up; men entitled to bear arms; gentlemen at arms, who in those days are not necessarily officers. But as the hon. Member doubts my sincerity he will take no notice of what I say.

Mr. Stewart: I am quite sure what the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought it meant, but it is not what the dictionary says it means. That is why his definition was completely misunderstood and misinterpreted. When he reads in the dictionary that a gentleman is someone who is authorised to bear arms, the meaning is somebody authorised to have a coat of arms, and I am pointing out that that is quite nonsensical when applied in this Clause.
There is another definition of an hon. Gentleman which we use in this House, where it means somebody who disagrees with one politically, as opposed to an hon. Friend who is somebody who agrees with one. There is another use in common speech to mean somebody who practises some kind of craft or sport but does not

do it particularly well, as we distinguish, for example, gentlemen from players; and we distinguish from an ordinary farmer a gentleman farmer, meaning by that somebody who may or may not make money at the operation.
The wider we search for a definition the harder it is to find one. There is one which has not been quoted here and might be relevant. It is the definition which was given by Robert E. Lee, who remarked that the forbearing use of power is the hallmark of a gentleman. That is possibly what was in mind. Here we have men who are given power and authority and therefore certain obligations are imposed upon them. If it is meant by that that an officer must behave in a gentlemanly manner, that having been given power and authority he must use it for the public service and not for his private advantage, we shall all agree that should be so. Again, any deviations front that code can already be dealt with satisfactorily under other Clauses.
We cannot avoid the fact that the use of the word "gentleman"—which by etymology and derivation means somebody who comes from a family which is supposed to be mysteriously superior to other families—to denote a code of conduct is to attempt to link a code of conduct which a gentleman should observe with a society based on an aristocracy of birth. That is why it is unsatisfactory.
The Secretary of State spoke about the undoubted fact that an officer must be one who, by his own character and attainments, is capable of leading and encouraging his men. He asks how it is that an officer acquired that position. One very great element in the answer to that question is that he acquires it by knowing his business. One of the questions which men ask—and this is more true today perhaps than a generation ago—and to which they will particularly want an answer when they are asked to submit to a man's authority is, "Does he know his business?" They will ask, "If it is he who is the boss, will the result of that be that the necessary military job will be done in the most efficient manner?"
In the last resort, that is the only rightful justification for the authority of any man. The only proper reason why "A" should have authority over "B"


is that a necessary job is to be done and that it will be done better if "A" is in charge and not "B". There was a time in society when the mass of men had been too restricted in their education and opportunities to realise that principle. Therefore, they looked to aristocracy of birth to lead them, and there were many in that aristocracy who behaved honourably and responded nobly to the obligations of their position.
That conception of society will not work today with widespread education and with an increasingly mechanised society. We have to see that an officer's authority must rest upon his being in every respect fitted for his job. That includes not only the characteristics to which the Secretary of State was referring but refers also to plain competence at his job, which is often of a technical character. I sometimes think that not sufficient attention has been paid, when considering the officer's position, to the plain question of competence, the great and increasing importance which is given to it by men today and the part it plays in determining whether or not an officer is respected.
Is it really suggested that if we remove the Clause from the Bill men throughout the Army will say, "In future, if our officer tenders a cheque which is subsequently dishonoured, he will be dealt with not under the gentleman's section but under Section 69 or Section 70 as if he were no better than we are?" Will they really ask how they can be expected to respect a man like that, who is merely subjected to the ordinary law and merely required to observe good conduct and military discipline? It is nonsense to suggest that the Clause has anything to do with the way in which men will regard their officers?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Who suggested that?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman suggested it. It was the main burden of his speech. The case has not in any way been made out.
Let it not be said that the Opposition do not realise the high and important position which an officer must prove. I say this very strongly, because I have sometimes disagreed with some of my hon. Friends on the point. I believe that in an Army it is important that an officer

should have great authority, that his right to impose discipline should be effectively safeguarded and that his duty to set an example and be a leader should be constantly before him, but I believe that it is bound up with our ensuring that the men who become officers do so because they are fit to be officers and not because they are supposed to be connected with a completely outworn social code. It is because the retention of the Clause seems to be bound up with the retention of that old out-worn code that I believe the Committee would be right to take this opportunity to delete it from the Bill.

Mr. James Simmons: I was concerned about the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), who has just left the Chamber. I sympathise with him in that he rose feeling rather emotional. I rise feeling much the same after hearing his speech and that of the Secretary of State. I was never more than a private in the Army. There are many other hon. Members in this House who began as privates, but they did not remain privates.
When I hear the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing and the Secretary of State talking about the conduct of officers and the conduct of other ranks as necessarily being different, it gets under my skin. The Secretary of State referred to a standard of conduct for officers to win them respect and to give them the prestige of leadership, and, by inference, suggested that the private soldier could not possibly attain the great heights of perfection occupied by the officer and gentleman.
I am a fairly keen student of human nature. Even in the bad old days when I was in the Army there were men in the ranks who were far superior to any of the officer class in their standard of conduct, honesty, decency, love for their fellow men, and desire to do a good turn for somebody. Today, with our higher standards of education, with men with university degrees undertaking National Service, it is preposterous to talk of two standards of conduct—that of the officer and that of the other ranks.
9.30 p.m.
I agree with my colleagues who have urged that we should delete this Clause on the ground that it is a piece of social snobbery. I am not concerned with the legal and the nice argument. I am not a nice chap. I am concerned only with hitting


out and saying what I believe. I believe that, in this age, to retain this anachronism in an Army Act from which we are gradually clearing away all the lumber of past ages and which we have modernised in almost every other respect; to retain this Clause, which differentiates between the classes so pointedly, which talks about
a scandalous manner, unbecoming … an officer and a gentleman,
is wrong.
I want to see "conduct unbecoming the character of a private soldier and a gentleman" punished. I know that when I first came into the House in 1929, hon. Members were always referring to hon. and gallant Gentlemen all over the place; never when I got up to speak. An hon. Lady dared to refer to it on one occasion and there were some very surprised, super-

cilious, and superior looks from the officers on the other side of the House at a private soldier being referred to as an hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Head: I always call the hon. Member that.

Mr. Simmons: The right hon. Gentleman does, because he has learned to respect me.
I would say that an officer's prestige and standing are decided by his conduct and not by the existence of the punishments proposed for bad conduct, and because of that I hope that the House will reject the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 207, Noes 192.

Division No. 33.]
AYES
[9.33 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Duthie, W. S.
Kerr, H. W.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fell, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Arbuthnot, John
Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin


Armstrong, C. W.
Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Assheton, Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn,W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Barber, Anthony
Garner-Evans, E. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Barlow, Sir John
Glover, D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Godber, J. B.
McKibbin, A. J.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gower, H. R.
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bishop, F. P.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Black, C. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Braine, B. R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, A. E.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Heath, Edward
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John


Bullard, D. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Neave, Airey


Campbell, Sir David
Hollis, M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar


Carr, Robert
Holt, A. F.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hope, Lord John
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph(East Grinstead)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Colegate, Sir W. A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
O'Neill,Hon.Phelim(Co. Antrim,N.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hurd, A. R.
Osborne, C.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Page, R. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Perkins, Sir Robert


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, Sir Roland
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Powell, J. Enoch


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kaberry, D.
Profumo, J. D.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ramsden, J. E.




Rayner, Brig. R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Turton, R. H.


Redmayne, M.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Robinson, Sir Roland(Blackpool, S.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Robson-Brown, W.
Stoddart-Scott. Col. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Roper, Sir Harold
Storey, S.
Wade, D. W.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Russell, R. S.
Studholme, H. G.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Wellwood, W.


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)


Sharples, Maj. R. C.
Teeling, W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Shepherd, William
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wills, G.


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Soames, Capt. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Woollam, John Victor


Spearman, A. C. M.
Tilney, John



Speir, R. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.)
Turner. H. F. L.
Sir Cedric Drewe and




Mr. Edward Wakefield.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, W. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hannan, W.
Oldfield, W. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hargreaves, A.
Oswald, T.


Bartley, P.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Owen, W. J.


Bence, C. R.
Hastings, S.
Paget, R. T.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Rt. Hn. W. (Dearne Valley)


Beswick, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bing, G. H. C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Blackburn, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Pannell, Charles


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, Horace
Pargiter, G. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Parker, J.


Boardman, H.
Hoy, J. H.
Peart, T. F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Porter, G.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Janner, B.
Rankin, John


Burke, W. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rhodes, H.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Carmichael, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Chapman, W. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Clunie, J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Ross, William


Coldrick, W.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Royle, C.


Collick, P. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Keenan, W.
Short, E. W.


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, C.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lawson, G. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.


de Fretias, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McInnes, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Foot, M. M.
Mason, Roy
Thornton, E.


Forman, J. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Timmons, J.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Messer, Sir F.
Usborne, H. C.


Gibson. C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Glanville, James
Monslow, W.
Wallace, H. W.


Gooch, E. G.
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, W. N.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hale, Leslie
Mort, D. L.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mulley, F. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.







White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Yates, V. F.


Wigg, George
Williams, W. (Droylsden)



Wilkins, W. A.
Willis, E. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, David (Neath)
Winter-bottom, Richard (Brightside)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66.—(DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I should like an explanation from the Minister as to the purpose of the Clause. It provides that:
Any person subject to military law who is guilty of disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent or unnatural kind …
shall be guilty of an offence. Is the purpose of the Clause merely to enable the military authorities to punish the soldier for offences not known to the ordinary law? We have shortly to deal with Clause 69, which covers the generality of matters not specifically provided for in other Clauses, and with Clause 70, which relates to civil offences.
I should like the Minister to tell the Committee why the retention of the Clause is deemed necessary. Surely disgraceful conduct of a cruel kind would constitute, by its nature, an offence against some well-established branch of the civil law, and disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind would, similarly, be an infringement of the ordinary law.
9.45 p.m.
Is it contemplated that the soldier should be punished for some indecency not punishable by the ordinary law? If that were the case, the Committee would not feel disposed to subject the soldier to a greater liability for punishment for offences of that kind, for which the ordinary citizen would not be considered a criminal at all. The Committee is entitled to know what is the purpose of the Clause. Is this simply to be held as a general threat over the soldier's head, to be the safety valve of the staff officer in finding some safe general allegation to make against the soldier?
Clause 69 covers the generality of offences—the old "Devil's Article," as it used to be called under the old Articles of War—which are still maintained in this Bill. I fail to see that any real purpose is served by the retention of Clause 66, and I shall require persuasion before approving its inclusion in the Bill.

Mr. F. Maclean: Briefly, the purpose of the Clause is to enable the military authorities in the field to frame, possibly without legal advice, a simple charge to deal with any offences of indecency. Clearly, soldiers under active service conditions may be called upon to live a life in which the ordinary conditions of civil life do not obtain, and, in those circumstances, and where the strictest discipline is called for, it is important that the military authorities should be able to deal with certain types of offences, which may not, strictly speaking, amount to offences under the civil code, but which, nevertheless, have to be dealt with under Service conditions.
To take one example, it was in relation to this Clause that the Select Committee considered questions relating to the punishment of sexual perverts. There are offences which, strictly speaking, may not be offences under civil law, but which would be intolerable under the conditions which I have described.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 67 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70.—(CIVIL OFFENCES.)

Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to move, in page 34, line 26, to leave out the second "or."
I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment, in line 27, after "law" to insert:
or any act or omission punishable by the law of Scotland which if committed in Scotland, would be punishable by that law,
and the Amendment, in line 37, at the end, to insert "or Scotland."

The Chairman: That will be in order.

Mr. Hughes: The Government have an advantage tonight which the Select Committee did not have, and which the Government themselves did not have on the Second Reading of the Bill. That advantage is that they have the new Lord Advocate here, to assist them with advice on the law in general and on Scottish law in particular, with which the Amendment deals. This will, I have no doubt,


assist the Government to take the right course with regard to my Amendments, and to accept and incorporate them in the Bill. Therefore, I commend them to the Committee as related Amendments which will manifestly improve the Bill.
I feel confident that the Lord Advocate will wish to make his debut in this Chamber by gladly accepting the Amendments and the improvements which they propose. I am not wedded to the form of words used in them, and if the Government will accept the principle embodied therein I shall be very happy. The Clause, as amended, would read:
(1) Any person subject to military law who commits a civil offence, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere shall be guilty of an offence against this section.
(2) In this Act the expression 'civil offence' means any act or omission punishable by the law of England which, if committed in England, would be punishable by that law or any act or omission punishable by the law of Scotland which if committed in Scotland, would be punishable by that law.
It is obvious that these Amendments are designed to secure that a person who in Scotland commits an offence against Scottish law shall be tried by a Scottish civil court.
On Second Reading, I made the point that this is a British Bill which purports to apply British law to British soldiers, but that, in effect, it does not do so because Scotland is still part of Britain, and Scottish law is still part of British law. What the Bill actually does is to apply English law to British soldiers, and not to apply Scottish law which, as I have said, is part of British law.
I make no point at all about military offences which are codified by Clauses 24 to 69. My argument relates solely to civil offences which are the subject of the Clause. Civil offences are not codified at all in the Bill, but are dealt with by applying English law—not Scottish, and, therefore, not British law—to British soldiers.
The Clause defines the expression "civil offence," and in this Measure "civil offence" means any act or omission punishable by the law of England which, if committed in England, would be punishable by that law. Obviously, Scottish law is entirely ignored. The proposed Amendments would cure that omission, and their advantages are set out in the argument which I adduced on Second

Reading, and which I shall not now repeat.
On Second Reading, the Minister gave me a very inadequate reply, and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), the Chairman of the Select Committee, purported on that occasion to reply. What he said was completely inadequate, completely irrelevant and was no answer to the points which I had raised. I say that with all respect to the right hon. and learned Chairman of the Select Committee, because I know of his great and learned work in that Committee, but I shall show that his reply on that occasion was not addressed to the arguments that I ventured to put before the House, and was quite inadequate.
I shall refer to the arguments that he adduced. I should like to say in passing that in presenting these arguments to the Committee I am not alone. I am supported by learned opinion in Scotland, by university professors, and by practising lawyers at the Scottish Bar. On that occasion, I quoted the learned Professor of Law in Aberdeen University to the effect that one would have expected the Select Committee, in reviewing the field of British law for the purpose of drafting this permanent Bill, which is not like earlier Army Bills—

Mr. Mackie: rose—

Mr. Hughes: Please allow me to present my argument.
This is a permanent Bill. It is not to last only one year, and one would have expected that, in drafting the Bill, and in particular Clause 70, which relates to civil offences, the Select Committee would have reviewed the whole field of British law.

Mr. Wigg: If my hon. and learned Friend is going to charge the Select Committee with neglect, one would have expected him to get clear in his mind the difference between the Bill which we are now discussing and the Army Annual Bill, because quite clearly he does know the difference.

Mr. Hughes: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to say that, if I am charging the Select Committee with neglect, I should do so by means of a Motion on the Order Paper. I ask him not to take my criticism so much to heart,


and to allow me to criticise this Clause and to propose my Amendments, without his seeking to make a mountain out of a molehill.
I was about to say—

Mr. Mackie: rose—

Mr. Hughes: Do please sit down.

The Chairman: If the hon. and learned Member does not give way, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) must resume his seat.

Mr. Hughes: I am trying to address to the Committee an argument which will be understood by those familiar with military law, like my hon. and gallant Friends on this side of the Committee and by lawyers, but which may not be understood by farmers.
I was about to quote Professor Smith, Professor of Law in Aberdeen University, on this point. He said:
… in completing a military code for the British Army it would be appropriate … to take into consideration at each stage the solutions not only of the English legal system but of the Scottish legal system as well. The better of the two should be adopted or indeed it might be possible in some respects to improve on both.
I have mentioned that for the purpose of indicating to the Committee the grave nature of these Amendments. It is obvious that the Select Committee from the start set out to draft an English Bill applying English law to British soldiers, instead of carrying out its remit of drafting a British Bill applying British law—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (PENSIONS)

Resolved,
That any Act of the present Session relating to the superannuation benefits payable in respect of service with trustee savings banks and their inspection committee may exclude relief under the Income Tax Acts in respect of contributions to be made towards the cost of pensions payable under provisions corresponding to Part I or Part II of the Superannuation Act, 1949.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

To report Resolution and ask leave to sit again—[Sir C. Drewe.]

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LAND, THEYDON BOIS (ACQUISITION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Græme Finlay: I am very grateful for this opportunity of raising a subject tonight which, I think, is demonstrably a case of great potential hardship to a subject of the Crown as the result of the compulsory acquisition of his land for the purposes of housing.
Theydon Bois, where the land concerned is situated, is a most attractive village on the edge of Epping Forest, which forms part of Greater London's very necessary Green Belt. It has many charming buildings, but not the least is the house known as Pake's Farm, where my constituent, Mr. William Giblett, lives. The amenities of the farm are dangerously threatened as a result of a compulsory purchase order made by Epping Rural District Council in 1953 and confirmed by the predecessor of the present Minister of Housing and Local Government in September, 1954, after a public local inquiry.
The amenities of this house are quite considerable. The farmhouse is Georgian and in part goes back to the sixteenth century. My constituent, Mr. Giblett, comes of yeoman farmer stock and farmed this holding of about 65 acres from 1890 until the end of 1939. At the end of


that nearly 50 year period Mr. Giblett's family became in a position to purchase the agricultural unit. This was a recognition of many years hard labour on the land, where they had to milk 40 to 50 cows daily. The whole village of Theydon Bois was supplied with milk from the farm.
In the First World War Mr. Giblett, who is now nearly 60 years of age, served with the Queen Victoria's Rifles for three and a half years and was severely wounded, losing a leg. He is by nature a modest and reticent man who, in normal circumstances, would not make any parade of these honourable circumstances. The loss of his leg severely handicapped him in farming and up to 1939 when, as well as his other disability, he had a severe attack of coronary thrombosis, he was forced to let out the land to a leading farmer in the district.
After the war, Theydon Bois started expanding again and in 1948 the local housing authority, Epping Rural District Council, compulsorily acquired about nine acres near the farm for housing purposes. On that piece of land the council housed 100 families. It was the local housing authority's first bite at the cherry. What was left to Mr. Giblett after that was the farmhouse with a small plot of four acres and an isolated 57 acres away across the railway line which runs through the village. In those circumstances Mr. Giblett, with his bad health, his coronary thrombosis and only one leg, felt that it was best to sell the isolated 57 acres to a nearby farmer, so he was left with the small island of four acres around his farm which forms the subject of the present compulsory purchase order.
It might well be thought that a man who had already lost so much for his country and who had suffered the loss for housing purposes of nine acres of his best land might be left to spend the rest of his days enjoying the remaining amenities of his farmhouse, the farmhouse in which he was born and which his family had acquired as the result of continuous hard work on the land. Unhappily, that was not to be, because the local housing authority came once more in search of further land in pursuance of its public duty of rehousing people at Theydon Bois. The housing authority's choice of sites was not, however, an easy one. Theydon Bois is already nearly fully

developed and is surrounded by Green Belt land on the edge of London into which no housing must trespass. In substance, however, the housing authority had two possibilities from which to choose.
First, there was a site of 11 acres on the Baldock Estate, not far away—that is, an estate of about 26 acres—and then there was Mr. Giblett's four acres, together with a small site of about half an acre in Avenue Road belonging to a Mr. Manning. The local authority made a compulsory purchase order upon both these sites and upon another site also, and ultimately, after a local inquiry, my right hon. Friend's predecessor confirmed the order made upon Mr. Giblett and upon Mr. Manning's half acre. There are circumstances of hardship in the case of Mr. Manning, but it is upon the case of Mr. Giblett that I desire to concentre. The Minister did not, however, take the same course in the case of the Baldock's land and decided not to confirm the order.
This particular piece of land forms part of a much larger site upon which private house building development was projected but as yet has not taken place. I appreciate that the Minister must be careful not to discourage private developers. Private development of this kind has excellent virtues, no doubt. For one thing, it has the beneficial result of people owning the houses in which they live, and it releases the Exchequer and the local ratepayers from the burden of housing subsidies. At the same time, land acquisition for public purposes can, and often does, result in hardship and injustice for individuals. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Minister would be the first to desire to minimise this hardship as far as possible.
At present, at any rate, Mr. Giblett is legally in danger of losing the last amenities of his patrimony; for if the compulsory purchase order is enforced to the hilt, all that he will be left with is a tiny plot of land around his farmhouse and a little bit of orchard. In fact, it will mean virtually the end for him.
Mercifully, however, a spirit of compromise has always been a patient characteristic of the local authority in question and I understand that at present it does not wish to do everything which it has the legal right to do. Incidentally, it


would not have selected this site as a first choice. It has a number of building disadvantages and is also likely to be uneconomic. However, the local authority is prepared to compromise. Notwithstanding the uneconomic development, it will leave to Mr. Giblett the small paddock at the side of his farm, which is a very necessary component of the milk dairy unit which is being run from the farm. They will also build in such a manner that the best views from his farm are kept intact.
We must be grateful for this measure of mercy, but, at the same time, recollect, when we consider the public interest, that Mr. Giblett has made considerable personal sacrifice in the public interest, first when he lost a leg fighting for his country in the First World War; and, secondly, when his land was compulsorily acquired on a previous occasion in 1948 for housing purposes.
Private house building is no doubt a fine thing. It lifts a financial burden from the taxpayer and the ratepayer, but let this not be done at the expense of a man like Mr. Giblett, who has already sacrificed so much. No monetary compensation could be completely adequate in a case like this when a man's family sentiments, patrimony and amenities are at stake. I am glad I have had an opportunity to call public attention to a case of undoubted hardship, to which I know the Parliamentary Secretary will devote his most sympathetic attention.

10.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I think I should begin my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) by saying that this is a most difficult case. It is one of those problems in town and country planning which arise from time to time when a difficult choice has to be made, and whatever the decision is it is liable to provoke criticism.
I should first like to stress the care which was taken to attempt to reach the right decision. Cases of this kind, and much of what my hon. Friend has been saying during the last 10 minutes, tend to lead a great many people to think that this is a case in which authority has trampled without feeling over the rights of a private individual. That is not so, and I should like my hon. Friend, and,

above all, Mr. Giblett, who is after all the person most concerned in this, to realise that it is not so.
Perhaps I had better begin by saying something about the background against which this decision was taken. Theydon Bois is an old village in the Green Belt, administered by the Epping Rural District Council. It has grouped itself round a very pleasant village green tightly enclosed by what is called an "urban fence." There is a very limited amount of land for housing development either by the council or by private enterprise. I stress this, because my hon. Friend has already admitted it is a major factor in the difficulty which has concerned us in this case.
There are, in fact, six plots available in the village, two of them very small sites, each big enough for two or three houses; and the third is a market garden, the use of which for housing was subject to strong agricultural objections. That leaves three sites in respect of which compulsory purchase orders were made. One was the site in Avenue Road, which comprises ·65 of an acre, the second was that on Pakes farm which is 4·93 acres in size—this is in dispute—and the third is the Baldocks Farm Estate of 11 acres.
At the start the council was in need of 10 acres of land for its housing, and early in 1954 it made Orders in respect of the three sites which I have just mentioned. There followed two hearings. One was held by the Ministry's inspector on 29th June, 1954, about the land on the Baldocks Farm Estate, and the second, which was held on 4th August by another inspector, was into the Pakes Farm site and the Avenue Road site. They were considered together. The council made it clear in advance that, to an extent, these were alternatives; that is to say, given the 11 acres of Baldocks Farm Estate it would not press for the combined 5·58 acres of Pakes Farm and Avenue Road.
The next point I should make is that a consequence of these hearings was a reassessment of the council's needs. I think that is worth mentioning, because it is very often thought that these hearings or inquiries are loaded in favour of the land-seeking authority. One consequence was that the demands for land were trimmed back to five or six acres—instead of 10 acres—for about 32 houses. The


issue came to this that, within this very tight ring of the village, five acres of land had to be found somewhere for these council houses. Accepting the housing need, which we did, that meant that Pakes Farm or Baldocks Farm Estate were the alternatives.
The evidence in regard to both was fully deployed at the two hearings. It was studied before the Report was made, the Minister studied it again before making a decision, and I have studied it since. The objection to building on Baldocks Farm Estate was substantial. This is an area of 90 to 100 acres which has been extensively developed, leaving 26¼ acres undeveloped on the north-west.
As my hon. Friend knows, there is a long history to this case which time precludes me from reciting now; but, at the time of the hearing the land was in the hands of a private enterprise firm—Daniel Jackson and Company Limited—which bought it for £26,250, and was proposing to develop it. The firm had put its plans in. Much evidence was produced at the hearing to the effect that were the estate broken up by a compulsory purchase order to include council houses it would lose its value as a private estate. In fact, this private enterprise firm made it clear that it would have no further interest in the matter if that were done. I think that my hon. Friend would agree—in fact he did agree—that there would have been a considerable grievance if a private housing estate, already planned and in process of development, had been subject to an Order which carved a slice out of it and jeopardised the whole enterprise.
The evidence on Pakes Farm was considered at the second hearing a month later. I do not dispute the facts about the farm or its owner, which facts I think my hon. Friend deployed with absolute fairness and moderation. This is a charming old residence, part of it 16th century, where Mr. Giblett's family have lived since 1890 and where Mr. Giblett was born. In 1948, most of the land was sold to a leading farmer in the district, and part of what was then sold to that farmer has since been acquired for housing. I think that is somewhat at variance with what my hon. Friend said, but that is the fact. About four acres

were left and they were let as a dairy and poultry smallholding.
I must agree that, other things being equal, if there is a reasonable alternative, there are strong objections to taking land twice from the same man. I quite see the force of that. In fact, that was not done. In the first place, Mr. Giblett had sold the land and, therefore, it was no longer, as it were, connected with him. In any case it is fair to say that things were not quite equal here, due to this total embargo on any development outside the ring fence round Theydon Bois. My right hon. Friend's predecessor, therefore confirmed the Order last October. I am aware that Mr. Giblett feels that his surroundings will be ruined by the development which will now follow.
As that is a most important issue in this matter, I have gone into some detail on the point. We have been in touch, as I think my hon. Friend has been, with the council. I entirely agree that the council has taken a most sympathetic and helpful view, and with it we have examined the prospective lay-out. It is not the final lay-out, though I have no reason to think that there will be any substantial changes. It is quite clear that the council is as anxious as we are to safeguard what is left to Mr. Giblett. Our regional officers intend to keep in touch with the council and to work with it over this matter.
As my hon. Friend said, the poultry land, which is a small paddock, and the orchard, will be left. I do not over-rate what that is in the way of a safeguard, but it will be left. The question of a price has not been discussed yet and, therefore, I do not want to say anything about it. Notice to treat was served on Mr. Giblett on 29th December, and the next step is for the owner to submit his claim. I cannot usefully make any comment on that in advance.
I do not deny the loss of amenity to Mr. Giblett, and I do not seek to minimise it. He has suffered, or will suffer, a considerable loss of amenity, which any one of us would consider in his own case was grievous. I think that it can be mitigated, and, in conjunction with the council, we shall make every effort to see that it is mitigated. I want to make clear to my hon. Friend that a great deal of time and trouble has been spent, quite rightly,


on going into all this matter and in sifting the alternatives.
Nothing in this difficult case has been skimped or guessed at or rubber-stamped. It has all been gone into in very considerable detail more than once. As my hon. Friend realises, the Order is final, and we shall adhere to it. The only thing left for me to say is that, after reading the papers relating to the matter over and over again, I am absolutely satisfied that the decision was reached on fair and reasonable grounds.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary rose earlier than I expected and prevented my supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay), which I wish to do in relation to a matter which does not concern the personalities in this case. It is a matter which the Parliamentary Secretary did not touch upon in his reply, but which is vital to those of us who are interested in the preservation of the Green Belt. This land is Green Belt land. To those who are interested in Green Belt land the idea of compulsory acquisition for housing purposes is one to which, whether at 10.30

at night or at 10.30 the following morning, we would never submit.
Here Green Belt land is taken for housing. How can the Parliamentary Secretary possibly excuse that, or say to the House that he is going back on a policy which was so well supported by his predecessor, and is allowing Green Belt land to be compulsorily acquired for building purposes? If it happens in Epping it can happen elsewhere. The Parliamentary Secretary should say that if there is a desire to build on land which is not built upon at present those who build must go outside the Green Belt.

Mr. Deedes: My hon. and learned Friend is under a misapprehension. As I stressed, the difficulty in this case was that we were dealing with sites within the ring fence of Theydon Bois, which is there to prevent the Green Belt being built upon.

Mr. Doughty: But this is Green Belt land. I want an assurance that Green Belt land will be preserved, whether it be in Theydon Bois or elsewhere.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.